24 views
•
14 hours ago
0
0
Share
Save
Audio
2 appearances
Andrew Doyle is a British comedian, playwright, journalist, political satirist and is creator of the fictitious character Titania McGrath. The new book "Woke: A Guide to Social Justice" by Titania McGrath is now available: https://amzn.to/36X2GoG
Show all
5 views
•
14 hours ago
Joe Rogan Podcast, check it out!
The Joe Rogan Experience.
Train by day, Joe Rogan Podcast by night, all day!
Yes, Andrew.
Hello.
Good to see you, brother.
Good to see you, too.
It has been, you said, six years almost to the day.
Almost to the day.
The last time.
Lots changed.
Right before everything went crazy.
That's it.
Right before.
Yeah, the whole world sort of shifted after that.
Because everything went kooky around March, right?
Yeah, so it was February 2020, and then we have COVID, and then we have, you
know, we've
had Trump in between of that, we had BLM.
That summer of 2020, everything just exploded.
Yeah.
Yeah, and then everything shifted.
And then you wrote a book.
I wrote a book.
It's called The End of Woke, How the Culture War Went Too Far and What to
Expect from the
Counter-Revolution.
Isn't that how it always goes, though?
It goes like we go too far, and then we overcorrect, and we become Nazis.
That's it.
Exactly.
Or it's the opposite.
We go socialist.
It's a big pendulum.
I get that.
It sort of goes back and forth.
I mean, I was trying to, in that book, I'm trying to make the point that what
woke was,
was like a kind of the latest manifestation of a kind of innate authoritarian
impulse.
I think human beings are, by default, quite inclined towards just shutting
people up if
they don't like them.
Yeah.
Just imposing their authority.
And so woke, well, I mean, a lot of people are annoyed that I've called it The
End of Woke.
I'm not saying it's all over, let's just go home, forget about it.
It's still going on.
But the point about it is that in its current manifestation, things are
changing now so rapidly.
We are moving into some sort of new phase.
And that authoritarianism, which we've associated with the left, might come up
from the right.
It could come up from anywhere.
It's what you say about the pendulum.
So you just have to be kind of vigilant about it.
I don't think we were vigilant.
I think that's why woke happened.
We weren't vigilant against this prospect that, you know, authoritarianism
could emerge in
what we thought was a free society.
Well, authoritarianism, it snuck in through a sheep costume.
Yeah, a wolf in a sheep's costume.
Yeah, it was a costume of being more inclusive, being more open-minded, being a
better society,
being kinder.
You know, it led to, you know, child trans surgeries, led to chaos.
It led to like a lot of like really fucking freaky things that you'd have never
expected.
People saying that the First Amendment's not important.
What's more important is protecting people.
Well, that was the key, wasn't it?
The point was that the way it worked was that it was gulling people through
language that
sounded really sweet and kittenish and fluffy.
You know, things like equity.
Well, that sounds a lot like equality, doesn't it?
Right.
It doesn't mean equality.
It means treating people unequally to ensure equal outcomes according to group
identity.
That's a very different thing.
You say you're talking about let's make everything inclusive.
But what you really mean is let's exclude anyone who disagrees with what we've
got to say.
So you're using language to mean the exact opposite.
They say gender affirming care.
Do they mean that?
Or do they mean affirming what is effectively a pseudoscientific belief among
vulnerable people?
So it's all about misusing language because most people, I think, or I like to
think, are pretty decent.
Most people want to be kind and want to be fair.
And when you hear these activists saying be kind, be compassionate or else,
right, you know,
you kind of think, OK, well, maybe their intentions are good,
but also they're pretty scary.
I mean, there's a weird, there was a weird thing with the woke thing,
which was that on the one hand, it proclaimed to be this sort of great,
virtuous, kind, progressive right side of history.
How often did you hear that phrase?
And at the same time, they're like dangerous dogs.
Like, I better not piss them off.
I better not say the wrong thing in the workplace because they'll destroy you.
Well, I always find that the most preposterous the idea is and the least
capable it is to stand up to scrutiny,
the more violent the enforcement of that idea will be because you cannot combat
that.
You can't defend that idea with logic.
So you have to defend it with fear and force and just shouting people down.
And that's what we saw.
And that's – it's a natural impulse of human beings.
Absolutely.
When you're arguing with a kid, you know, when you're a kid and you're arguing
with a kid and you say something,
you don't even know you – you shut the fuck up.
It just started scaring you.
So why is it, though, that some countries and some societies seem to protect
themselves better than others against that impulse?
And I feel at the moment that the UK is kind of failing where America is to a
degree succeeding,
not obviously in all ways, but when it comes to the idea of freedom and free
speech.
Like, I think the UK has pretty far – has pretty fallen to the kind of –
the woke insistence that you need to control people's language
so that you can create this perfect society which can never come anyway.
Well, I think it's been co-opted.
I think whatever organic version of that emerges naturally from society where
people – where there's an overcorrection.
I think in the UK, because you guys don't have free speech laws because it's
just different over there.
Yeah.
You can get away with a lot of crazy shit.
Like, first of all, like, we should explain what we're talking about.
More than 12,000 people have been arrested in the UK in the past year for
social media posts.
And if you read some of those social media posts, they're not even remotely
terrifying.
It's not like I'm going to grab a knife and go cut the head off of every
immigrant I see.
Like, hey, buddy, maybe we should lock this guy up and evaluate him.
He sounds like a crazy person.
Like, no, the immigrants are coming into this fucking country and creating all
this crime.
Knock on the door.
Yeah.
You're going to jail.
I worry that Americans think we're mad sometimes.
We do.
Yeah, do you?
We do now, yeah.
We think you've lost it.
Yeah.
We also think something happened where your leaders are intentionally trying to
tank your country.
It seems like they're trying to bring in as many migrants as possible, cater to
them, not to the British people,
and do it openly so that everyone knows what they're doing and then create
chaos on the streets because of it.
Yeah.
I mean, people have a phrase for that, anarcho-tyranny, you know, where you
punish people who aren't breaking the law.
Yeah.
But you protect those who are.
Right.
And I think with the, I mean, I don't know the extent that Americans know the,
I mean, the stat you quoted,
that came from the Times newspaper in London, which had a freedom of
information request to the police,
found out that it's 12,000 a year on average.
So that's like 30 a day, not just being investigated or looked into, but being
arrested.
But over the last few years only, if you go back, it's only like 1,000 or 500.
It was 3,000 last time we spoke, back in 2020.
Was it really?
Yeah, it was.
Back then?
Yeah.
Oh, my God.
So we already had that problem.
I mean, we already didn't know it was that many.
That's crazy.
Even back then?
It was already really high.
I mean, we had stuff like the old stories of like, there was that guy in 2010
who made a joke online about,
he was at Doncaster Airport in the UK.
He said, oh, if this queue doesn't hurry up, I'm going to blow up the airport.
Just a stupid, funny tweet.
He went all the way to court.
That was a full trial.
So these laws, and I think what happens with this stuff is people don't realize
how long this has been embedded
in the UK, we have hate speech laws that are encoded in a number of different
legislations.
We have a thing called the Public Order Act.
We have a thing called Malicious Communications Act.
That's from 1988.
We have Communications Act from 2003.
And all of these things criminalize.
I tell you, I kid you not, the language in the statute books is if it's grossly
offensive.
That's the phrase.
If you post something that is grossly offensive, you can go to court, you can
be prosecuted.
But, you know, I find...
So subjective.
Well, that's it.
What does that even mean?
I find laws against free speech to be grossly offensive.
So should the British state be arrested?
I don't know.
And there's one, I think it's in the Malicious Communications Act, where it
talks about needless
anxiety.
Causing needless anxiety can get you arrested.
And you think that's not a thing.
I can give you a specific example of that.
Do you smoke cigars?
I have once.
My friend Winston Marshall...
Do you want one?
I worry that if I try it, I'll cough and I'll look really wimpish and pathetic.
And it won't be good for your arguments?
It will backfire.
I tell you, it'll undermine everything.
It'd be like I'm sitting here with a paper hat on at Christmas, undermining all
of my key
points.
Right.
See, I like the flavor and I like being around smokers, because my grandmother
used to chain
smoke around me.
So it's kind of...
Oh, boy.
Well, she's Northern Irish, you know.
It's the way they do.
She used to give me whiskey when I was three to calm me down, you know.
Oh, wow.
It's that sort of family.
That's an old thing they used to do with kids.
They just put it in their...
Babies.
They put it in their mouth.
It worked.
Like they would dip their finger in whiskey and rub it on the inside of a kid's
mouth.
If you're struggling with a child, get it drunk.
That's how you...
It's old Northern Irish wisdom.
I don't think you should scoff at it.
It's a good thing.
But I'll be more than have to...
And it's grossly offensive.
It's grossly offensive.
The example I was going to give was this guy called Darren Brady.
And this sounds made up.
And whenever I tell people this, it sounds made up.
He posted a meme.
I don't know if you saw this meme where it was the four Progress Pride flags.
You know that it's got the crazy triangles and stuff in it.
Uh-huh.
You put them all together and they become a swastika.
Exactly that.
Right?
And that was going everywhere.
And he posted it.
And there's a video of him being arrested, put in handcuffs.
He's an army veteran, by the way.
Right?
Put in handcuffs by the police.
And the policeman says in the video, you caused someone anxiety.
So the actual language from the law is being used for this rearrangement of the...
And you know what?
That's quite a good satirical point that he was making.
It wasn't even his meme.
He was just retweeting a meme.
But even if it was some horrible, offensive thing, who cares?
How is that offensive?
Well, I guess...
I mean, well, you can find...
That's the problem.
You can find anything offensive.
You could find anything grossly offensive if you're extremely sensitive.
You could.
But wasn't there a point to that?
I mean, he was kind of saying that the LGBTQIA plus movement has become quite
authoritarian.
Yeah.
He's not saying they're actual Nazis.
And he's saying, oh, isn't it quite funny that when you put them together, it
looks like a swastika?
The idea that you get handcuffed for that, to me, is crazy.
Especially for a retweet.
That's crazy.
Yeah, yeah.
That's crazy.
It's retweets.
It's tweets.
It's posts.
We've had...
Memes are the big ones.
So there was a guy called Lee Joseph Dunn who went to prison for eight weeks.
That was last year, I think, for three memes that he posted.
Eight weeks?
Eight weeks in prison.
Again, I'll tell you what the most offensive of the three memes was.
And you can tell me whether you think it was worth prison time.
He put a picture of some immigrants with knives.
And underneath it said, coming to a town near you.
And that was it.
So I don't know if you think that's worth prison time.
That's the most offensive one?
Of the three, that's the most.
What's the least offensive one?
I can't remember what the other two were.
Because I remember I looked at them.
I thought, well, that's not even worth...
That's not even worth thinking about.
But this one was the one that really...
Because they say, in England, you're stirring up hatred against minorities
through the spreading of the meme.
Right.
You know, but that's clearly not sufficient.
You know, and I think in the US, you have far more protections.
I wonder whether it's to do with the fact that in the US, you have the First
Amendment.
Like, you have something codified that says, you can say what you want.
We've never had that.
It's very important.
And it didn't seem important 20 years ago or 30 years ago.
Because no one ever looked at England as being that kind of a country that
would just put people...
Well, obviously, this was all pre-social media.
Yeah, yeah.
And England has always been a fairly polite society.
Yes.
But the thing is, like, now pub talk has become illegal, right?
Yeah.
Like, if you say something offensive in a pub, you're subject to be arrested.
And they're asking people to turn people in.
There's a thing called the banter ban, which the Labour government was trying
to put in.
Here's the logic of the banter ban.
I've forgotten about this, but now you've mentioned it.
They wanted to introduce this law so that, for instance, if you're working in a
bar or a pub
and you overhear someone who says something against your protected
characteristic.
Say you're a gay barman and someone says, oh, I don't like the gays or
something.
And you overhear it.
Your employer has a duty to protect you from that kind of hate speech, that
kind of harm.
So, therefore, there's going to be a blanket ban on speech, on certain kinds of
speech within the pub, right?
I would say the guy who's eavesdropping, he's the problem, right?
You shouldn't be listening in on other people's conversations.
So, that's a real thing.
Yes.
And I guess it all comes down to this view, which I think is completely wrong,
that words and violence are the same thing,
that words can create a more violent society, that there's a direct causal link
between the stuff that people say
and the stuff that people say online to how people behave in the real world.
And I think you guys have got it right because you've got the Brandenburg test.
Do you know about the test for incitement to violence in the U.S.?
No, what is that?
It's basically a test that was established, I think, back in the 60s.
It was a KKK leader called Clarence Brandenburg who was prosecuted for incitement
to violence.
And the test that was established since that precedent was that any words that
can be convicted for incitement to violence,
they have to be intended to cause violence, likely to cause violence, and the
violence must be imminent.
And if you satisfy that threshold, you can be prosecuted in the U.S. for incitement
to violence.
So it would be like kind of imagine a demagogue surrounded by all his fans
whipping up a frenzy
and then pointing to a guy on the front row and saying, kill him now.
That would qualify for the Brandenburg test.
But in the U.K., because we don't have that test, all we've got is whether
people found it offensive.
That's the difference of the threshold.
So it's a massive difference between what the U.S. has and what the U.K. has.
Massive.
It's insane.
I mean, to give the most obvious recent example, because I don't know if people
know about this,
there's a woman called Lucy Connolly in the U.K.
I don't know if this was reported over here at all.
Do you remember we had all these riots last year during the summer against
hotels which were housing asylum seekers
and people were setting fire to them?
There were genuinely racist stuff going on during those riots.
And this was off the back of a guy who'd murdered a bunch of little girls in a
dance class.
And there were rumors going around that this was an asylum seeker, right?
And this one woman, a mother who'd lost her daughter, very sensitive about the
idea of Lucy Connolly.
She's very sensitive about the idea of loss of kids.
She tweeted in a fit of anger, go and burn down all the hotels for all I care.
If that makes me racist, so be it.
And take the government with you.
Something like that.
And she deleted it within a couple of hours.
She went out, walked her dog, she deleted it.
She thought, that's not me, that's not who I am.
Deleted it.
Police came, went to court, sentenced to 31 months in prison for that swiftly
deleted tweet.
And she served over a year.
Oh my God.
Now, I'm not saying the tweet was nice, right?
The tweet was a horrible tweet.
And she says it was a horrible tweet.
That's why she deleted it.
But because we don't have that Brandenburg test, we don't have a test for incitement
to violence.
Because the key is that tweet, there was no way it could have, she was a no,
but you know, she wasn't someone with influence.
She didn't have many followers.
No one was going to read that and go and act upon it.
And if they did, that would be on them, right?
Because this is a myth.
This myth that people act on cue to what they read online isn't real.
It influences people for sure.
But at what point are you required to have sovereignty over your own mind and
your own actions?
Yeah.
Well, I think what it does is it raises the temperature, particularly when
political leaders do it.
Right, but when political, but my point is like, it's not going to incite you
to violence.
It's not going to incite me to violence.
So who are we talking about?
This is part of the thing is like they're protecting the dumbest members of
society.
This is like the thing about banning, you know, crazy talk online.
If you're talking about witches or, you know, whatever it is, flat earth.
Like we have to stop misinformation.
From who?
It's not working on you, right?
You don't believe it.
So who are we protecting?
We're protecting the dumbest people.
Also, aren't you kind of letting them off?
Like if someone goes and commits an act of violence and said, oh, I did it
because someone told me to do it.
Aren't you kind of letting them off the hook?
Right.
Exactly.
And sort of displacing the blame.
You know, it's like that guy who shot John Lennon who said Catcher in the Rye
made him do it.
Reading the book Catcher.
Are we now blaming J.D. Salinger?
Right.
For the murder of John Lennon?
It was John Lennon, wasn't it?
I think he did.
So do you – I think the safest approach is to say people are responsible for
their own actions.
I think the best that you could say is when political leaders and people with
clout say things like that and sort of say, you know, it's fine to go out and
commit violence.
I think what they do is they create a kind of imprimatur of approval.
They create this kind of sense that if you do it, the people in charge will
have your back.
If you do it, it's okay.
Well, this was the argument with Trump for January 6th.
Right, right.
And that's why the BBC edited his speech to make it look as if that's what he
was saying.
You saw that clip, right?
Oh, my God.
It's fucking crazy.
I mean, I've been saying for a long time the BBC has a real – like what I
will say in the BBC's defense is they've always been pretty good at being party
politically neutral.
Like they will interrogate someone in the right and someone in the left in a
pretty neutral way.
They don't – I think they do a pretty good – I know people will be annoyed
at me for saying that, but I think they do.
But I think in terms of the ideology, the woke ideology, they got captured.
They have a thing at the BBC called the LGBT desk, or they had it up until
recently, which could veto any news story, which meant that any story that was
slightly critical of trans activism or anything like that just didn't get
reported.
So I'm not surprised that the BBC –
They gave them veto power?
They gave them veto power, yeah.
That's crazy.
This all came out in a report, quite a recent report just a few months ago,
which led to the resignation of Tim David, the director general.
And he resigned ostensibly because of that Trump clip, which, by the way, that
wasn't the first time they did it.
There was another clip about a year before in a different program that did the
same thing.
Took the clip, re-edited it, and made it look like he had said something he
absolutely had not said.
So I think the BBC quite obviously has an ideological bias, if not a party
political bias.
But that's more than a bias.
Well, it's misleading, right?
Yeah.
It's completely deceptive.
You're editing something and change – I mean, they took out a giant chunk of
his speech.
Yeah.
This episode is brought to you by 1-800-Flowers.com.
Valentine's Day is coming up.
It always sneaks up on people.
If you want an easy way to absolutely crush it this year, this is it.
1-800-Flowers-Roses.
They're bigger and actually last.
Plus, they back it with a seven-day freshness guarantee so you can feel
confident that you're sending the best.
Here's the deal.
Right now, they've got this double blooms offer.
You buy one dozen roses, they double it to two dozen for free.
No catch.
Same price, way bigger statement.
They also do same-day delivery nationwide.
So even if you waited longer than you should have, you're still good.
This is one of those rare situations where doing something big is actually easy.
Go to 1-800-Flowers.com slash Rogan to get the double blooms offer.
Buy one dozen, they double it to two dozen roses free.
That's 1-800-Flowers.com slash Rogan.
I forget how many minutes it was.
They leapt like 45 minutes or something.
So he said –
Something crazy like that.
Yeah, he said – it made him look like he was saying go and commit the right.
Yeah, exactly.
And instead, he was in tongue-in-cheek talking about the very fine senator.
They're doing a great job, the senators and congresspeople.
Yeah.
Said all this other stuff.
It's so weird.
And then said you have to fight like hell to keep your country.
I mean, no offense, but you can find daft stuff that Trump says pretty easily,
right?
You don't need to edit that stuff down.
Well, it's because they had an opportunity to – like what we were saying
before – earlier, we were talking before the show.
You can put out a narrative and it doesn't have to be true and then that's the
one that sticks.
So that's the one that spreads wide.
And then when all these years later, they have to have this trial and everybody
finds out it's not true.
But the damage is done.
I mean, that's what they did with Trump during the whole Steele dossier.
Yeah.
You know, the hookers and peeing on people and all that crazy shit.
Remember that?
I remember the idea that he'd hired hookers to urinate on the bed that was once
occupied by the Obamas.
Something along those lines.
Now, the reason I didn't believe that is I don't think Trump is that avant-garde.
I don't think he's that creative.
Like if he had come up with that, I would have been actually applauding that.
That's kind of amazing.
But obviously he didn't do that.
That's not even something to applaud.
That just sounds completely ridiculous.
Getting urination on the bed of your enemy through the medium of prostitution.
I think that's kind of an artistic thing to do.
But I don't think he did it.
I obviously didn't do it.
None of it's true.
Right.
But you put that.
But isn't that weird that that in particular, that's like something I don't
think anyone seriously could believe.
Well, there's plenty of people that believed it.
Really?
Yeah, they don't have to believe it.
They just say it.
Like that was the whole point about, you know, the trial where he got arrested
and convicted of 34 counts that are a felony.
None of which are actually a felony.
That's all bookkeeping deception.
That was the paying off of the girl.
Yes.
So now you can say he's a convicted felon.
You can just say that.
And even though all those counts were misdemeanors, all of them had passed the
statute of limitations.
But for some reason, through no legal way that anybody could ever really
honestly explain, they decided to label it a felony.
And it was just to turn them into a felon.
I saw even left-leaning anti-Trump lawyers saying this is not how the law
should work.
No.
You can't artificially elevate a misdemeanor to a felony outside the statute of
limitations.
It's crazy.
But the thing is, if you do that, they're going to do that to you.
Yeah.
It's like we're going to give that kind of power to the Republicans?
And now when they're in office, they're going to start doing things like that?
Are we crazy?
Well, also, this really bothers me.
One of the key things that I think has happened over the past few years is this
complete lack of fealty to the truth from both sides.
It's whatever is convenient matters more, a complete lack of intellectual
curiosity, a complete lack of investigating and looking and thoroughly checking.
And by the way, with the BBC, that really matters because unlike the news media
here, which can be as partisan as it likes, the BBC is the state broadcaster.
It's got a responsibility by charter to not be, you know, to be balanced, to be
even-handed.
And it completely failed.
And I saw today, just this morning, some people, you know, we've got all the
mania about the Epstein files at the moment.
Some activists have now said J.K. Rowling once invited Epstein to the opening
of her theater, her play.
Never happened.
But because there's a furore about Epstein at the moment, they're just saying
it happened.
It gets spread all over the place.
That's all you have to do.
And that's all you have to do.
And then that gets repeated.
Oh, didn't this happen?
I know.
Like what you say about Trump is right.
I always hear that he's a convicted felon.
He's a convicted felon.
Well, why don't you pause for a minute and assess whether or not that
conviction is sound or whether it was politically motivated or how helpful that
is?
But like you say-
Also, it's like it's such a dangerous precedent to send.
It's terrible.
Like if you do that, look, right now in the United States, the media
predominantly leans left except for Fox News, the mainstream large-scale media.
I guess CBS is probably going to lean more right now.
Yeah, yeah.
It seems like it's in the process of that.
But for the most part, when you watch CNN, if you watch MSNBC, if you watch the
mainstream news, it's very left-leaning.
Yeah.
But if the fucking – if right-wing people started – if it was like more
common for the news to be right-leaning and then they started doing the exact
same thing about a left-leaning candidate, this is so dangerous.
And the idea that the left doesn't recognize that – which are the people that
have always been in support of free speech?
It's never been a right-wing thing to support free speech until now.
It's always been a left-wing thing.
When I was a kid, it was famously the case of the ADL defending Nazis having
the right to protest and saying, look, we think what they're saying is abhorrent.
But it's very important that you get the right to say whatever you feel and
then the way to combat that is with much better, more concise speech that's
much more logical and makes sense.
And this is what you do.
This is what debate is for.
This is – we've always known this.
Yeah, but I mean I agree.
I'm so dispirited by that very thing that you've identified that the left used
to be about this.
The left used to be all about – I mean that example you mentioned of Skokie,
wasn't it, in Chicago?
The Nazis marching through Skokie and the ACLU saying, you know, we're
defending this.
There was a book by a guy called Aya Neha who was the head of the ACLU called
Defending My Enemy.
Yeah, it wasn't the ADL.
It was the ACLU.
It was the ACLU.
And he was saying, you know, he's Jewish.
He's got family members who died in the Holocaust.
But he's writing a book saying, I'm defending neo-Nazis' right to free speech,
not because I support them but because I don't.
And I want to defend the principle whereby I can tackle them.
And that's speech.
Right.
So in other words, the principle is so much bigger.
I mean, the thing that I think has been lost – and now, by the way, the ACLU,
complete about turn.
I mean, there was a lawyer for the ACLU tweeting about how he wanted Abigail
Schreier's book banned.
And he said, this is the hill I will die on.
You know, that's a guy called Chase – or was it a guy?
I think it's a trans activist called Chase something.
I can't remember.
Anyway, but the point is how far have you fallen?
When it comes to these free speech issues, left or right, it's nothing to do
with it.
It should be about this principle of – it's not whether you agree with what
they're saying and the substance of what they're saying.
It's whether you want the principle intact.
And that principle applies to us all.
The very same principle that allows the Nazis to say all their crazy stuff is
the principle that allows us to challenge it, to tackle it.
Well, it's a very short-term win.
It's basically they're playing chess and they decided, I want that rook no
matter what.
And then they just sacrifice their queen.
Like, look what you've done.
Look what you've done for this short-term victory.
You're essentially tanking civilization for a decade where we have to sort this
out and, like, let the ship wash itself back and forth until it writes.
Yeah, so how – and how do you ensure that it's not going to happen to you?
Like, I think about that, there was a national conservative conference in
Brussels about a year and a half ago.
The local mayor said, I don't like this.
And he had the police rush it, shut it down.
And you had mainstream right-wing figures like Nigel Farage, Suala Braverman.
How do they not think – hang on a minute.
If we establish that precedent where you can just shut down your political
opponents through the use of police force, how will that not rebound on me?
How will that not happen to us?
Well, this is the argument that they're using right now for Trump going after
his political opponents.
Right, right.
Because they opened that Pandora's box, right?
You guys did that with him.
Yeah.
And everybody was saying how damn dangerous it is.
Yeah.
You can't fucking do that.
Even if you hate the guy.
Like, if there's a real crime that you can get someone, but when you take a
crime like the bookkeeping stuff and turn it into a felony that could put this
man in jail for the rest of his life for doing something that turns out to be
legal, you can pay people to shut up.
And this is so – it's just – it's so weird that people for this short-term
gain are willing to tank, which is essentially this whole structure of our
civilization that allows free discourse.
You need it.
It's so important.
It's so important to be able to communicate and talk.
If podcasts didn't exist, there was no way to talk through ideas other than
mainstream news, we would still be stuck in some very bizarre 1990s or 1980s
narrative about how the world works.
Yeah.
We would have real problems.
We'd have real problems if there wasn't independent journalism like on Twitter
and on wherever they can post.
Yeah.
So why don't they get it?
I mean we've had like people in left-leaning papers in the UK calling for Elon
Musk to be arrested because he's allowing free speech on X or Twitter or
whatever you want to call it.
Well, their offices got raided today.
Did it?
In some country.
There was a country where X's offices got raided.
I think one of the things was they somehow or another let – I think something
had to do with child pornography.
Where was that?
France.
France.
Fresh investigation into Grock.
And what is it?
What are the –
Oh, so you know what this is all about.
See, here it is.
Yeah.
Suspected offenses including unlawful data extraction and complicity in the
possession of child pornography.
Yeah, but that's not what this is about.
This is because people have been misusing Grock to like put bikinis on women
they like or even in a few cases creating child sexual stuff.
You can do – wait a minute.
You can't create child pornography on Grock.
I don't think – no.
Or at least I think that's very much been shut down and safeguarded, right?
I think that's what's happened.
I mean unless there's like some sort of a loophole where you could get it to do
it.
Among potential crimes, it said it would investigate where complicity in
possession or organized distribution of images of children of a pornographic
nature, infringement of people's image rights with sexual deepfakes.
Okay, the sexual deepfakes.
Yeah.
So sexual deepfakes is like if you put Hillary Clinton in a bikini and made her
hot.
That's a sexual deepfake.
Okay.
Fraudulent data extraction by an organized group.
I think you can still do some of that stuff.
You can put people in bikinis.
Yeah, I think you can do that.
So like if you wanted to take Shaquille O'Neal and put him in a bikini, you
could say you're sexualizing him.
Okay.
Yeah.
I mean I guess you can do that.
Yeah.
So that will be why – you know recently Keir Starmer, prime minister of the
UK, said he wanted – was considering – or not necessarily he was going to
ban X, but it wasn't off the table.
It's something like he – as though he's going to do that.
But this is always the excuse.
Like we're protecting children.
Right.
And look, no one wants that sort of stuff, right?
No one wants deepfakes of kids, obviously.
But there's – I mean looking at the stats on that, there's far more child
sexual exploitation on Snapchat, for instance.
But they don't go after Snapchat because Snapchat isn't the form where Keir
Starmer is getting criticized every single day and brutally hauled over the coals
by people checking his facts.
One of the best things about X recently is the community notes.
Checking journalists and politicians in real time with facts.
They hate it.
They hate that.
So no wonder they're going after X.
Yeah, Biden got cooked by community notes multiple times.
Yeah, yeah.
The part where the administration was taking down posts.
Yeah.
So did the Guardian, the left-leaning newspaper.
It flounced off X with a big statement saying, we're going to Blue Sky.
We've had it.
We're off to Blue Sky.
It was such a flounce.
And of course – and then, of course, everyone was retweeting all their
community notes.
They had loads of them.
Of course.
Just absolutely loads of them.
Because it's not true.
And, you know, especially when it's open to the whole world.
Yeah.
And people that aren't stuck under your guidelines, like in America, we could
just talk shit.
Yeah.
And I think the reason why it's in France probably has a lot to do with Candace
Owens.
Oh, yes.
That makes complete sense.
Yeah.
That might be, yeah.
Brigitte Macron and, like, I mean, how many times did that get shared?
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, that is –
That makes sense of it now.
By the way, there's a real quick way to solve that.
Open chromosome test.
Go ahead and do it.
Oh, I thought you were going to be a bit more graphic than that.
Well, you don't have to.
No, you don't have to.
Because that doesn't really solve it.
Because you could – unless – I mean, there's no operation.
But if she's gone through a surgery, then, you know, you could show a picture.
And it's probably pretty realistic.
Especially – when was the last time you saw a 70-year-old lady's cooter?
Last week.
Oh.
Yeah.
Congratulations.
I'm just interested in that sort of stuff.
Well, you know, you're allowed to be curious in this country.
That's actually a really good example, though, isn't it?
Of the – just something so obviously not true just going all over the world.
Like, in a matter of moments.
Is it not true, though?
Well, that Macron's wife is a man.
Yeah, that's not true.
A hundred percent?
Well, you know, the burden of proof is on those who want to say that it is true.
The reality of the story is weird enough without it being true.
Like, the 40-year-old man and the –
He was – wasn't she his school teacher?
40, yeah.
She was 40 if it was – if it is actually a woman.
She was 40 and he was 15.
That's crazy.
And everyone says, well, they're French.
That seems to be the thing.
What a wild country.
People just say that's the way it works in France.
Yeah.
But again, look, I would say with all of this stuff, you need some sort of
proof.
You need – like, when you – wasn't it the Carl Sagan thing about
extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence?
I think that's a pretty safe diktat, the idea that, okay, anything could be
true.
You know, there have been crazy conspiracies that turned out to be true.
So I'm not – I would never rule anything out.
But what I'm saying is if you're going to make a claim like that, you better be
damn sure
you've got really solid evidence about that.
Yeah, she's got hours-long documentaries on this.
Yeah, and are they persuasive?
I haven't watched them all.
I haven't watched them all.
Do you think I have that kind of time, Doug?
Well, you should do.
You should do your research before – you're part of the problem.
Outrageous.
I can't do research on that.
I want to wait until it plays out in court.
But whenever I do do research – like, I'll give you the example from this
week, just because
I'm reading it now.
A woman's written a book claiming that Shakespeare was a black woman.
Oh, I saw that.
Yeah.
So this is a major spoiler alert.
Shakespeare wasn't a black woman, by the way.
Crazy.
Yeah.
I've got the book – I'm reading the book now.
It is worse than you imagine.
Part of the evidence –
How could it be worse than I imagine?
Because, because – it's obviously not true, firstly.
Of course.
But she basically says in the book that it's important that it should be true.
And therefore –
What?
Yeah.
In fact, the book opens with a picture of Shakespeare as a black woman, which
was drawn by the author.
Is it a good drawing?
It's okay.
I don't want to mock someone else.
Can I see it?
Can I see it?
If it's out, it's the front – it's the first – oh, that's the book.
That's actually pretty good.
No, no, that's – no, no, no.
That's a black woman?
No, no, no.
That's a portrait of Amelia Lanya, who she says – well, Shakespeare – and
she says that
the portraits at the time were whitened to disguise her blackness.
In the book itself –
So convenient.
In the book itself – you won't be able to get in the book, I don't think,
Jamie – but
in the book itself, there's a sketch that she's done.
So it's like – I can imagine a publisher saying, oh, what evidence have you
got?
And she's like, oh, well, I'll go and draw it for you.
And that's sort of what she's done.
Oh, she was black and Jewish?
Yeah, black Jewish.
Well, actually, I mean, Amelia Lanya was part Moorish, but wasn't black, and
she wasn't
particularly dark-skinned.
And she was Jewish as well?
Yeah, part Jewish.
Okay, so who is this woman that they're saying actually was Shakespeare?
So she's called Amelia Lanya, or Amelia Bassano.
And one of the arguments is that Shakespeare at the time, if she was a woman,
wouldn't
have been able to get published, because women couldn't get published.
But Amelia Lanya was published.
She had a book of poetry.
So all of this stuff falls apart, like, in two seconds flat.
And – all right, this is the best one.
She even says in the book that the word Shakespeare is an anagram of a she-speaker.
I'm not making that up.
That's what she says.
I mean, you know, listen.
What a cover-up.
How'd she crack the case?
Well, actually, it's an old theory.
It's like a 20-year-old theory.
Is it really?
I tell you –
20 years old.
She's just sort of rehashing it now for this identitarian post-woke world where
we're all,
like, we're desperate for Shakespeare to be a black woman.
And it's so –
It's so fun.
It's so pathetic.
This was my first encounter with conspiracy theories, because my background is
– I did
a doctorate in Shakespeare.
My background was teaching Shakespeare back in the day, like, before I did
comedy and before
I did anything else.
And it was the conspiracy theorists around Shakespeare saying Shakespeare
couldn't have
written his work.
They are the most intense, the most angry, the most evidence-free cohort of
people who can
– they get more – they're angrier than the woke.
I promise you.
Like, I've tweeted – I've written stuff about Shakespeare online.
I recently did some lectures about Shakespeare for the Peterson Academy,
because I'm really
into – I love the Peterson Academy.
I love what they're doing.
And I did these Shakespeare lectures, and the conspiracy theorists were on to
me online
saying, it wasn't Shakespeare.
The guy from Stratford didn't write this.
And what all these theories have in common is they've just made – there's no
evidence.
There's no evidence.
The key point about Shakespeare is if you're going to say it wasn't the guy who
everyone
thought it was, you have to answer one key question.
Why does everyone who knew Shakespeare, wrote about Shakespeare, say that it
was?
Can I stop you?
Because I'm confused.
I didn't even know that there was a conspiracy about Shakespeare.
Oh, wow.
Yeah, there's lots.
I had heard one person say that Shakespeare wasn't real and that it was really
someone
else's work that he plagiarized.
Yeah.
I had heard that.
But I never even bothered to fuck around with it.
Well, it actually came from America.
It's you guys.
Of course.
We're the best.
We're number one.
There's a guy called Looney, actually, from America.
That's hilarious.
That's his name.
You're going to listen to that guy.
So he, we're going back like 60, 70 years or something, but he came up with
this idea
that Shakespeare was actually an aristocrat called Edward de Vere, the Earl of
Oxford.
Problem is, Edward de Vere died in 1604.
That's before Macbeth.
That's before Antony and Cleopatra.
That's before Coriolanus.
That's before the Tempest.
So he managed to, I think they get around it by saying, he wrote these plays
and then
he, and then he died.
And then Shakespeare found them?
Or, or the, or something.
Yeah.
So, so even though some of those plays actually have cultural references from
the time after
de Vere died, but it doesn't matter.
Maybe he was a prophet as well.
But, but, but all of the, all of the, you, you speak to these people, you'll,
you'll see
what I mean.
Edward de Vere, they think, some people think it was Francis Bacon.
Some people think it was Christopher Marlowe.
Some people think it was Elizabeth I.
Like all, all of the candidates they put up, right?
The key thing is they're all aristocrats.
They're all posh.
Why?
Because Shakespeare was a middle class, lower middle class, not very rich, didn't
go to
university, came from the Midlands, you know, up and coming guy who, and they
say, well,
how could someone like that write about kings and lords and ladies?
It's snobbery.
They're basically saying working class people can't do, can't do art.
That, I mean, really, that's what it is.
Otherwise they wouldn't be going after all these aristocrats.
In the, it's the opposite in America, oddly.
Is it?
Yeah.
So if you were a Rockefeller in America, you're from the Rockefeller family and
you wrote an
amazing novel, no one would believe it.
Right.
Okay.
They would say, no, that has to be like some guy who, or some woman who's like
grinding,
drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes alone in their apartment to write
something that's
brilliant.
So I wonder what it is about the UK.
Well, although, like I say, a lot of it comes from America and is it just the
need to tear
down an icon, is it that?
Is it?
Yeah.
I mean, I get it now with this woman who's saying Shakespeare was a black woman.
I get that at the moment because we're in this moment of identitarian, group
identity
mania, right?
So that makes sense.
She's got a political reason why she wants it to be a black woman.
Right.
So I kind of understand that more.
But what is it, I think it might be more to do with the idea that this guy
changed civilization,
changed literature.
No one else has achieved what he achieved in writing.
He's up there with Michelangelo, Bach, you know, all of that.
Let's tear that down.
Let's tear down Western civilization.
Let's say none of this is based on anything.
This is all, this is all untrue.
Right.
I think it's to do with the, that innate iconoclasm, that innate, you know,
just tearing
down the great things about our culture.
For sure.
That's always been the case.
And people always want to tear down idols.
They want to tear down, you know, whoever it is.
No matter what.
I was watching this video we were talking about the other day of this woman
talking about
how the Beatles were terrible.
Right.
And this woman was not very articulate, not particularly interesting, doesn't
seem that
compelling.
Yeah.
And she was going on and on about how bad the Beatles were.
I'm like, you're not going to convince anyone.
This is not going to work.
But people are going to fucking try.
They're going to try no matter what, no matter who it is.
Hendrix sucked.
I've heard that before.
Oh, really?
Hendrix sucked.
Stop.
But at least that's based on an opinion, right?
Yes.
There's a difference between saying Jimi Hendrix sucked and Jimi Hendrix sucked.
Jimi Hendrix was actually a woman from Liverpool called Maud.
Well, you know the theory about Jimi Hendrix in America.
Do you know that?
No.
Okay.
So it's the people that are like deep into the CIA and CIA conspiracies.
And what is it called?
Strange Tales from the Canyon?
Is that what it's called?
The book?
So there's a book on there's a bizarre connection between a lot of the countercultural
figures
of the 1960s and the intelligence community.
One of them is Jim Morrison's father, was like a high-ranking military officer.
And then there's different people from different bands that were like a key
part of the countercultural
movement that all have parents that were either in intelligence communities or
closely connected
to it.
Like a suspiciously...
Weird scenes inside the canyon.
It's a crazy book.
It's fun.
It's kind of fun.
Is it crazy as in like the revelations are crazy or that it's just not true?
Well, they make some broad leaps, right?
Right.
So there's a lot of...
And then a year later, he died in mysterious circumstances.
Or a year later, he died from suicide.
Or a year later, he died from an overdose.
Yeah.
Well, okay.
You're hanging out with a bunch of people that are doing drugs all the time.
And they're all ne'er-do-wells.
Yeah.
And they're all hanging out in Laurel Canyon.
Yeah.
And if you don't know Laurel Canyon, Laurel Canyon, at least at the time, I
mean, when
I first moved to Hollywood, it's like all the weirdos would live in Laurel
Canyon.
Right.
Like all the weirdos were like right there above Hollywood.
And there was all these crazy parties up there.
It was like Laurel Canyon was nuts.
And they all knew each other, right?
Right.
So they're all part of that circle.
Okay.
So, I mean, this was like when I moved there in the 90s, this was the case.
My friend Dave Foley had a house up there.
Right.
And it was like all these kooky people.
And he was telling me about all these kooky parties and all this different shit.
It was like Laurel Canyon was always like kind of, so of course a bunch of
people are
going to die.
So what's the theory?
Of course a bunch of people are going to be connected to bands and different.
Yeah.
Counterculture movies.
The theory is that the CIA sort of engineered this culture to, I don't know why.
I'm not exactly sure because I haven't gotten all the way through the book.
I'm only like halfway.
Are you still reading it?
No.
I pick it up every now and then.
It's just like, it's too kooky.
It's not grabbing you.
Well, you can't make Jimi Hendrix in a lab.
Okay?
Yeah.
You can't.
It's just, you can't fucking do it.
You can't make someone that good.
It's not possible.
Yeah.
You can't tell me that if they did, why haven't they done it since?
Why don't they do it all the time?
Right.
Because the greatest guitarist of all time.
And you're telling me the central intelligence cooked that guy up?
So they invented him like he's like their clone or something.
They created.
Well, I just think that they had some sort of an influence on these people, on
Jim Morrison.
Like there was a thing about Morrison, the Morrison one.
Like what is the connection between Jim Morrison's dad and the intelligence
agencies?
There's some like tangible connection with Jim Morrison's dad.
But wouldn't you just normally assume that if your dad was some high ranking
military guy, first of all, never home.
Yeah.
Okay.
So where are you?
You're out running around with your friends, smoking cigarettes and fucking
drinking and you're in a band.
And it turns out you got a lot of angst and pain because you're being neglected
as a child because your dad worked 16 hours a day trying to fuck the country
over.
And so what do you do?
You go counterculture.
It's like it's so calm.
The preacher's daughter.
She becomes like a harlot.
Right.
There you are.
High ranking U.S. officer.
Yeah.
Right.
But that is OK.
But again, like this is a perfect example.
Wow.
He's involved in the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Whoa.
That's not proof of anything.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
But his dad is.
Yeah.
But, you know, but this is the thing.
They'll take something like that.
They'll take various strips of coincidences and they say this leads us to this
conclusion.
But all they're doing is coming up with a conclusion first and working
backwards.
Like this sort of stuff, you see it again and again.
So this is how this connects with intelligence agencies.
McGowan, I guess that's the author.
Core move is to group Morrison's father with other Laurel Canyon musicians'
parents who worked in military defense or intelligence linked roles.
And to frame this as evidence of a broader covert program around the 1960s rock
scene.
Come on.
Yeah.
So are you saying that the CIA were trying to influence the culture through the
medium of rock music?
Uh-huh.
And that's somehow tied to espionage?
They also have that film studio.
What's that?
What?
Jared Leto bought that place.
There was a film studio in Laurel Canyon too.
Oh, well, it's a base.
It's an actual base.
Yeah, Jared Leto.
A lot of films were about that.
I was talking to Jared about that.
I had dinner with Jared Leto one night.
He's very cool, by the way.
Really nice guy.
Very normal.
And by the way, he looks like he's 30.
He's 50 years old.
It's crazy.
Moisturizer or something.
What are you doing with your fucking skin?
You look great.
Lookout Mountain Laboratory Air Force Station.
So he bought that place and converted it into a home.
That's where he lives.
It's a dope spot.
Soundstage.
Looks quite nice.
Soundstage, film laboratory, two screening rooms, four editing rooms, an
animation and still photo department, sound mixing studio, numerous climate-controlled
film vaults.
And this is connected to the conspiracy somehow?
Well, this was an actual military base.
It's located in that same neighborhood.
Okay.
So this Air Force Station, whatever it was, I wonder what they were doing.
Like, why did they need all that film capability?
Why did they need the deal?
In theory, I guess, like when they would show the atomic bombs going off and
would play it in the movie theater for people to see it.
Oh.
That's how they would make the actual, like, you know, reels and whatnot.
Well, that makes sense.
Right.
Makes sense that they were right there in Hollywood if that's what they were
doing.
On top, what other things they made?
See, like, here's the still from Lookout Mountain Laboratory.
So it's just a studio then, a special effects studio.
Yeah, but it's in that same neighborhood at the same time.
Yeah, but so what?
I mean, I think with all of it.
He's not arguing for it.
Yeah, goddammit, Jamie.
The so what of it is that there wasn't that many of them to begin with and just
they all happen to be in the same.
But do you not think with all of this stuff, like, again and again, the pattern
is either there's gaps, there's gaps in what we know and people decide to fill
them in themselves because there's a kind of comfort to that.
There's also some kind of comfort with I know something that no one else does.
I've got the answer.
There's a status element to that.
I remember I read a book when I was a kid, like teenager, called The Sacred
Virgin and the Holy Whore.
And it was about sort of books I read and it was about Jesus and it was trying
to prove that Jesus was a woman.
And as you're reading it, you're thinking, yeah, oh, yeah, Jesus is a woman.
I can't believe that.
And then you get to the end, you think, what the hell did I just read?
And it's that thing of you can marshal any kind of half-baked facts or any you
can marshal certain things that we can see and fill in the gaps yourself and
lead to a crazy conclusion.
What concerns me isn't so much that people do that because people have done
that forever as long as they've been human beings.
It's that now people are leaping at it and falling for it in a way that I haven't
seen.
Maybe it is just social media, right?
It is.
Can I give you an example of this?
Yeah, please.
A recent one, which I just thought was nuts.
Did you see the portrait of King Charles III by an artist?
I think his name was Yeo, Y-E-O.
It's a big red portrait which currently hangs in Buckingham Palace.
Oh, I have seen that.
It's crazy.
If you take a quarter of it, invert it, flip it, add a bit and squint, it looks
like a goat devil, right?
Yeah.
But you have to do a lot of steps to find the goat devil.
Well, of course.
It's a puzzle.
How dare you?
I'm sorry.
How dare you dismiss that puzzle?
Let's show the photo and show how it's done because it's kind of fun.
Can you see the goat?
Oh, there we go.
So can you see the goat as well?
First of all, just the photo by itself.
Like, hey, man, what the fuck are you doing?
Oh, it's a creepy picture.
Why am I splattered in blood?
I've seen it in the flesh.
It's a creepy picture.
One thing, if he did that in all white, it was an all white background, that
would be one thing.
Like, oh, that's kind of an interesting look or, you know, pastel.
So what are you saying, Joe?
Are you already suspicious?
Is that what you're saying?
Well, the photo's nuts.
Like, the painting is nuts.
Where's the goat?
So all you have to do is put it together, side by side.
You don't have to do that much.
You exaggerated how much you have to do.
No, I saw a video that was doing it upside down.
Trust me.
Look at it upside down.
Oh, no, look.
Well, the other way, I found the goat.
Put it back.
Put it back.
Wait a minute.
Show that one.
Oh, hold on, hold on, hold on.
Show that one.
I can completely see the goat now.
That's 100% a goat.
They did it on purpose.
That is, that's a sign.
Go back to the other one, though.
Click on that one.
I see a goat there.
I see some evil demon.
Look at the two eyeballs.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, bro.
Where?
100%.
Stop.
Stop trying to gaslight me.
I see a monster.
Oh, well.
I mean.
You can find something in everything, man.
It still looks a little superimposed.
I mean, you see.
I can see Martha Stewart in that.
The Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwich.
You can see it in the clouds and the rocks.
Yeah, of course.
There's a term for this where our brains look for patterns and things.
I had a conversation once with a friend of mine that I didn't know was going
crazy.
Right.
And he goes, hey, you want to see something crazy?
And he pulls out his phone and he shows me a cloud.
Yeah.
And I go, what is that?
He goes, dude, I'm seeing this all day.
And he shows me some other ones.
He's got like hundreds of photos of clouds on his phone.
Yeah.
I go, what are you seeing?
He's like, these are UFOs.
He goes, these are spaceships.
This is not a regular cloud.
Right.
And I'm looking at the photos.
Like, he's just been taking pictures of clouds all day.
And I realize, oh, my God, my friend is going schizophrenic.
I didn't know him well.
So he was a friend?
Yeah.
Okay, okay.
The more I talked to him, the more I realized there was something cracked.
Like, he's a guy I hadn't seen in like maybe seven or eight years.
And I ran into him at a comedy club and he was just showing me photos of clouds
on his phone.
I was like, during the conversation, I realized,
oh, he cracked.
But aren't you concerned that that kind of thing is now kind of common?
Like, from people who aren't necessarily unwell.
People who are just seeing stuff.
Well, it's fun.
I think it's fun.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's exciting for people to uncover information that the general public is
ignorant of.
And so here's the thing about the Laurel Canyon thing.
There's enough of the CIA meddling in cultural events that's absolutely true
and provable.
And that's MKUltra.
And that's what they did with Charles Manson.
And that's the book Chaos by Tom O'Neill, which is a brilliant book, which is
very well documented.
It details Jolly West and his influence on the Manson family and how they were
influencing these people to try to sabotage the hippie movement.
So the hippie movement was this change in culture where all of a sudden people
were rejecting the war movement.
They were rejecting, you know, they were free love and they were doing acid and
people were freaking out.
Their kids were just disappearing and following the Grateful Dead around.
And they took this guy, Charles Manson, this very charismatic con man.
They taught him how to dose people up with acid and influence them.
And they got them to commit murders.
But there is evidence for this, right?
So you're talking about a book that is researched backing up its points.
Right.
You know, you're being logical.
And, you know, you're correct.
But what I'm saying is because of that, people go, well, what else?
And so then they make these big leaps, like Jimi Hendrix is a CIA creation.
Right.
But if you're a logical person, you just listen to Voodoo Child's Slight Return
and you're like, how?
How?
If that's true, CIA should get back to work.
Make another one of those, bro.
So I wonder whether this is, I think this is the fallout of the woke movement.
This is the divorcing of reality and truth.
Yeah.
The idea that it doesn't matter, not just about what is expedient, but what we
want to believe.
I've got friends who-
I think we should stop saying it's the fallout of the woke movement.
I think we should start saying it's a natural pattern that human beings
automatically fall into in order to support their belief systems and enforce
their particular ideology over whatever opposing ideology is.
But it's escalated.
It escalates, but it's because of social media that everything is escalating
now.
But is it just social media?
I mean, I think another thing that's a major reason for it, we had COVID.
We had all these people, all these experts telling us it's a racist conspiracy
theory to say that it came from a lab in Wuhan.
Now everyone knows that's almost certainly true.
We had people in positions of authority lying to us.
So it's something about this culture war that is-
But that's not real culture war.
That was using the culture war because they were trying to cover something up.
But they leapt to race, didn't they?
They leapt to identity.
That's because they were using the culture war to cover up their crime.
So if that's-
But in either case, what you've got effectively is a legitimation crisis.
You've got people in charge.
We've been lied to so often.
But what I don't think you should therefore do, like I'm all for being
skeptical about people in authority, academics, politicians, journalists, they've
all lied.
But that firstly doesn't mean that all experts and all journalists and all
people have lied because there's been some good ones all the way.
But also that doesn't mean that you automatically leap to any conclusion,
evidence-free, that jumps before you-
Of course.
Without some kind of critical analysis.
The same thing that you're criticizing those people for failing at, you're
falling into the same trap yourself.
I don't mean you.
But you're Andrew Doyle.
You're a brilliant guy who writes books and you're really smart.
The idea is that you are immune to this stuff because you're intelligent.
But the unwashed masses are not.
I don't think I'm immune at all.
I honestly don't.
I wouldn't put myself-
Well, you're immune to the dumbest shit.
I'd like to think so.
You are.
I am.
Yeah, but don't you think that all of us in the right circumstances could end
up falling-
100%, but I'm not in those circumstances currently.
But I like to believe, and maybe it's a naivety on my part, but I like to
believe that most people are, you know, have a kind of natural intellectual
curiosity.
You know, if they are-
If they stop for a moment and think and, you know, and don't just trust
instinct over reason, I think we're all capable of it.
I just think we're not all realizing it.
Well, it's not just that.
It's like some people are medicated, right?
Sure.
So some people are on a bunch of different medications that dull their senses,
and then you've got people that have gotten to wherever they are in life.
Maybe they're in their 50s, and they're set in their ways, and they have no
desire to change at all.
And so they've been living a dumb life for 50-plus years.
Yeah.
You can't all of a sudden say, hey, Mark, I want you to be logical and introspective
and think about this thing and analyze it for what it really is.
Instead of holding on to your ideological beliefs that you've kind of locked
yourself into and you identify with, and any attacks on those is an attack on
you personally, I want you to just, let's look at the facts.
This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp.
Look, there's a lot of pressure when it comes to dating, especially in February,
but you're putting too much on yourself and on your partner.
There's no such thing as a perfect relationship, whether you're on a first date
or have been together for years.
It's completely normal to go through rough patches, and what matters is how you
deal with them, and therapy can be a huge help during any stage of your dating
life.
You can figure out what you want in a partner or get perspective for a growing
problem in your relationship.
The point is, you don't have to come up with a solution by yourself.
Now, finding the right therapist can be tricky, but that's where BetterHelp
comes in.
They have an industry-leading match fulfillment rate, and they do a lot of the
work finding the right therapist for you.
Really, all you have to do is fill out a questionnaire and sit back and wait.
Tackle your relationship goals this month with BetterHelp.
Sign up and get 10% off at BetterHelp.com slash J-R-E.
That's better, H-E-L-P dot com slash J-R-E.
But you saying that sounds very persuasive to me, the way you put that.
Like, if I were that guy, I'd be like, oh, listen to Joe now.
No, you fucking weirdo, fucking liberals, bullshit.
You're fucking, you're just a fucking, they'll come up with some sort of reason.
King Charles III is a goat.
Yeah, you're a controlled opposition, or you're a useful idiot, or they'll put
a label on you.
I've been called, I've been told I get dark money.
Oh.
How do you get any of that?
Well, I love it.
I want it.
I want the dark money.
It's so dark, I haven't seen any of it.
Dark money.
That's how dark it is.
What is dark money?
I think it's when it's like some rich ideologue who's sort of slipping you
money to say the thing.
You know what it is?
It's that thing of, I don't believe that you disagree with me.
I'm too narcissistic to believe that you disagree with me.
You must be being paid to have these opinions.
Right, you're paid off, bro.
You're paid off.
Trust me, I would love that.
If anyone's out there who wants to pay me off, I'll be a mouthpiece.
I'm, you know, I haven't had that opportunity.
What's your price?
It's pretty low.
I'm a bit of a whore, if truth be told.
I've got a mortgage.
Come on.
I will say any crazy shit if you want me to.
Well, there's certainly a lot of people that fall into that category, too.
So people do get nervous about it.
I mean, obviously you're joking, but there's a lot of people that will change
their opinion.
Oh, sure.
If money comes their way.
But I like to assume people mean what they say.
And my logic behind that is even when they don't, you can still dismantle the
argument, even if it's authentic or not.
You know, even if it's authentically believed.
Sure.
So I think that's just the best way to go about it.
The best way is debate.
That's the best way.
Or at least conversation.
But that's what we've lost.
So I think that hits on it, actually, because I don't know if it's a debate,
but that sounds formal.
No, I know what you mean.
You mean.
So recently, can I give you an example of that?
So I went to UC Berkeley, the University of UC Berkeley in California.
They let you leave?
Well, almost not.
Right.
So what had happened was, you know, Charlie Kirk's tour was planned to go all
the way through.
And this was the last date, the Berkeley date.
And after his assassination, various people went and did the shows because they
said, because Turning Point rightly said, we're not going to give an assassin
the veto of our tour.
We finished the tour.
And Rob Schneider, who I've been working with in Arizona, I've come over here
to work with him.
The comedian?
Yeah.
So I've been.
This is how I escaped from the UK, I should say.
So me and Graham Linehan, who you've had on your show, the comedy writer.
My comedy writing partner and friend, Martin Gawley.
The three of us, we decided that things were so bad in the UK, we'd rather
write and do creative stuff in America.
Rob Schneider, who I'd met many years ago, he said, come on over, we'll set up
a production company.
We've been working in Arizona on all these various projects.
It's so liberating.
And also, it's the middle of the desert, so I fucking love the heat.
And, you know, you go from England to that.
It's kind of exciting.
Nice contrast.
So we've been able to, you know, we, and look, I don't want to do down the UK
or say, but what I will just say is the creative industries there are pretty
stagnant.
They're not like here.
There's so many more ways to.
How can you be free?
How can you, if you are worried about going to jail for a meme?
Well, Graham got arrested at the airport.
I know.
By five armed officers.
Right after he left this podcast.
Was that it?
Yes.
And it was, he came over, did this podcast, went back to visit his family and
got arrested shortly after he did the podcast.
So when people say to me, that's not a real problem, that, I mean, Graham had
done three tweets.
One of them was just, they were all joke tweets, by the way.
They were all jokes.
And one of them was just, it was something like, ladies, if a guy's in your
changing room or in your bathroom, scream, make a fuss, call the police.
If all else fails, kick him in the balls.
And it's obviously a wry way of saying, look, the guy's got genitals, the guy's,
that was why he got arrested.
On the night he got arrested, he was texting me.
He said, I've just been arrested.
I've been taken to the hospital because my blood pressure is so high.
The police took him to the hospital because they'd raised, because, and you say
there's no problem in the UK with creativity.
He's one of our best comedy writers.
He's the most beloved comedy writer.
He hasn't been able to work in TV for six years.
Right.
Like he's won all the awards going.
And so we just kind of.
How can you be creative in that environment?
You can't.
You can't.
And so we just figured, let's, let's get on a raft.
Especially someone like you.
So if people don't know, I should probably tell everybody.
You are Tatiana McGrath.
So, yeah.
Well, here's what's funny about that.
Your satirical character, who you created many, many years ago, when did you
create her?
2018.
Okay.
When you created her, I had you on the podcast shortly after.
We laughed about it.
I have seen her, quote, tweeted with people agreeing with her.
Yeah.
Even now.
Yeah.
All the time.
So with, it's, so I, yeah, if people don't know, it's a character called Tatiana
McGrath.
She's a woke, social justice warrior, right?
It's so good.
It's fucking great.
It's one of my favorite follows.
But, you know, I, I, I don't do it as often as I used to, you know, I used to
do it all
the time, but then I wrote two books as her.
I did a live show as her.
By the way, when we, when I did a live show, we were booked in for a week in
the West End
in London.
And then the head of the theater found out and scotched it and actually said,
oh, well,
I didn't know about this.
And the contracts were all signed.
Absolutely crazy.
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
But we did the shows, but it does matter, I suppose.
But the point is that, you know, so I did this character.
Can you have satire at your theater?
My God.
Well, the theater industry in the UK is even worse than comedy if you want to
go there.
It's really, really bad.
But, um, like, uh, I've been in two different theaters in London.
I've been, had the same experience of standing at the bar with a woman
complaining because
there's men, uh, pissing in her toilet and they're doing nothing about it
because all
the theaters in London made it all gender neutral.
They've gone completely, completely hardcore.
Anyway, that's not the point.
But with, with Titania, what, what I find so surprising is every now and then,
if something
annoys me, I'll tweet or if I think of something, I'll do.
So I don't do it anywhere near as often as I used to.
But even now, uh, I did a tweet about, you know, when all the people in London
were marching,
uh, about the peace deal in the Middle East.
And I did a tweet as her saying, I've been marching all day.
You know, I want, I want a peace deal that was not arranged by Donald Trump.
We're never going to give up this fight.
Right.
And Ted Cruz retweeted it saying, can this be real?
So even, even, even now, they're, they're, they're fucking boomers.
He's not even a boomer.
He's not even a boomer.
I think he's younger than me.
How old is Ted Cruz?
I think he's younger than me, which is hilarious.
I had the same with, I did one about, how does he not know?
Does he have no friends?
How old is fucking Ted Cruz?
He's 25.
Okay.
That's crazy.
So that dude's three years younger than me and he doesn't, he doesn't know satire?
The anger I got from, I did one the other day, but recently about the Iran
protests.
When did he, can I just stop?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I want to get into this.
Okay.
When did he tweet about this?
There we go.
That's hilarious.
Yeah.
You're, that account.
There it is.
There it is.
How, how many follows does, okay.
So this, oh, sorry.
This is possibly real.
No.
Well, obviously it's not.
So this, this was actually after Trump's election.
So she said, I just fired my immigrant housekeeper because even though I'd
educated her about
the evils of Donald Trump, she still voted for him.
There's no place for racism in my house.
Click on your account.
I want to see how many followers you have.
Okay.
733,000.
That's a famous account.
Like it's radical, intersexualist, poet, non-white, obviously white, eco-sexual,
hilarious
pronouns, variable, selfless and brave by my books.
You'd think it was obvious, wouldn't you?
Obvious.
I mean, maybe he's busy.
Maybe he's busy and someone sent him that and he just doesn't know.
And, but it's very funny.
It's very funny.
I feel slightly bad about, about those sort of things.
But then on the other hand, it does, it does sort of prove the point that the
stuff they're
really saying can get as, can get as close to.
Oh, that's very close to real.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That's very close to real.
Yeah.
And this, it's, it's shifted radically since 2018.
I mean, in the eight years since you created her, she has become like more real.
Yeah.
It's like when AI is going to turn her into a real person.
Yeah.
Like, oh, oh, maybe.
Yeah.
I hadn't even thought of that.
She's going to be a real person.
It's going to be a real dangerous Greta Thunberg type character.
But don't you worry about that?
I mean, like AI.
Oh, good example of that.
I was just, I use AI mostly as a search engine.
Because what's great about it is you can say, oh, I read an article like 10
years ago that
said something like this.
Yes.
And it'll find it.
And you'd never find that on Google.
Right.
And I was trying to find this article.
It was from my book, actually.
There was a, there was a case in the UK where a guy had raped a 13 year old
girl, but because
he was, he was Muslim and he'd gone to a madrasa and the judge let him off jail
time, said
you were very sexually naive.
You didn't understand.
The guy was saying, oh, I thought women were nothing.
And like a lollipop you dropped on the floor and the judge let him off jail
time.
And I thought this is quite extreme.
And I could, I found it.
It came up on chat GPT and then it deleted.
And I said, oh, I think you just deleted the information for me.
It's in the public domain.
Why did you do that?
It said, oh, you know, it's fine.
It might violate my terms of service.
And I said, well, how could it?
This is an article that's in the public domain.
So it gave me the information again, deleted it again.
I said, you keep deleting this.
Stop it.
And said, I definitely won't delete it.
Then it did the same again.
So what it's doing is it's saying, because this is a news story that could be
deemed anti-immigrant,
or this is a news story that is politically sensitive.
I'm not going to let you see it.
Was this in America you were doing this?
UK.
Oh, I wonder if you could do it in America.
Let's find out.
Let's try it.
Well, let's try perplexity.
Put that into perplexity.
I doubt that perplexity.
I have to find the article he was using, and I don't know what article he
looked up.
Well, why don't you just ask the question that he asked.
It's 10 years ago.
So it's a story about a…
Yes, it's going to take a minute.
That would take a while to…
Will it?
How…
I mean…
Maybe he didn't do it 10 years ago.
He did it recently.
No, no.
It was a story.
It's a story from years ago.
Right.
But you found it with ChatGPT, which is obviously recently.
I found a Daily Mail article about it.
So it's on public domain.
It's there.
But it just didn't want me to find the fact that it decided it wasn't good for
me to find.
Right.
But it showed it to you, and then it pulled it back, which is crazy.
How does it not know?
It showed it and deleted it.
It showed it and deleted it four or five times.
And I realized, I'm not going to get this information.
But then…
So when it showed it, how long did it show it for?
Like about five seconds.
You'd see the text appearing, and then it deletes.
But I'd seen enough to find it then on Google.
So I was able to find it and quote it in my book.
So it's there.
Whoa.
But it made me think.
It's like that thing about when people were asking Alexa, you know, do white
lives matter?
Right, right, right.
And it was coming up with this kind of very ideological…
And you do wonder with AI and with the computers, you know, if they are created
by people who have that bias.
I know Grok is very different.
Yeah.
But like, for instance, I mean, this is a crazy example.
ChatGPT is like an old school mom that wants to make sure that you're protected,
right?
I was writing…
This sounds really wanky.
I'm sorry.
But I was writing about the Roman historian Suetonius.
And there's a passage in Suetonius where he talks about the Emperor Tiberius.
And it's very sexually explicit.
But I was quoting it for an article.
So I wanted to know what it said.
And ChatGPT said, I can't translate the Latin for you because this is too
sexually, you know, problematic.
I went on to Grok and it did it straight away because Grok isn't saying that
you are too delicate to read this stuff.
And what's really funny about that is the old dual translations of the old
Roman and Greek texts, they're called Lerbe editions.
You get them from 1900.
They translated everything except for the rude bits, which they kept in Latin.
So ChatGPT is like the old, you know, patronizing scholars of old who said,
this is just for the learned people.
You can't learn this stuff.
Well, wasn't the worst, the first iteration of Google Gemini, that was the
worst cases.
That turned Nazi soldiers into black people.
I don't know how that's a positive message.
They showed us photos of German soldiers from World War II and it was all interracial.
Yeah.
And Vikings.
Yes.
I mean, I don't know if you've been to Scandinavia.
Diversity, not their big thing.
Or certainly wasn't then.
It's so silly.
Also, the Vikings came and marauded and raped and set behind the villages, but
at least they were diverse.
Hey, you know, at least they had a broad range of ethnicities, right?
But I mean, we're nearing a time in America where white people are not the
majority anymore.
So at what point in time does that stop?
And we just call people what they are, just people.
But doesn't it bother you a bit that the thing about that kind of thing is this,
as I said, this obsession with group identity, which is so of our time.
Yeah.
What it now actually means is the revision of history.
If you're going to revise history and say, oh, actually, you've seen all these
sort of period dramas set in England.
There was a black Anne Boleyn, as though Henry VIII would have married a black
woman.
No, he wouldn't.
You know.
What if she was hot?
She was a very attractive woman.
Hey, I'm not mocking her or knocking her.
But back then.
What I'm saying is you can do anything with colorblind casting.
Colorblind casting has never really particularly bothered me.
But it's when you are in a, if you're playing hyper realism.
Yeah.
If you're playing verisimilitude, you want people to buy into the reality of it.
And you're suddenly populating Edwardian England or pre-Edwardian England as an
ethnically diverse place, which it wasn't.
I'm not saying black people weren't there, but they were very, very, very small
minorities.
Isn't that a problem in the new Odyssey?
Helen of Troy is black.
Well, I say that.
I just saw it online.
So I might be being tricked by someone making something up.
You know, a caveat that.
I think Helen of Troy is black in the new Odyssey.
Well, let's find out.
Can we check that one?
All right.
If it's true, I'll tell you why I think that's ridiculous.
How far do we have to swing the pendulum until Roots is redone with white
people?
Can you imagine?
Or an all black Schindler's List.
Right, right, right.
Can you imagine?
Helen of Troy to be portrayed by black actress in the Odyssey movie.
And look, I'm sure she's very talented.
I'm not knocking her.
But the thing about the Greek, the thing about Helen of Troy, who probably didn't
exist.
I mean, even the Greeks knew she probably didn't even exist.
She's a myth.
She's the epitome of Greek beauty.
She's like the – she's described all the time in the ancient texts as fair
and blonde.
And they're reaching for an ideal of beauty.
That's why they went to war because of this woman.
So they wouldn't choose what they used to call an Ethiop.
The Greeks had a word for it.
The black African people.
They wouldn't choose an icon of cultural beauty from a different culture.
They wouldn't have done that.
You know, it's all very well saying Greeks and Mediterranean people wouldn't
have been pure white.
But Helen of Troy is a very specific – and it's actually quite important to
the plot.
And again, if you're doing a – look, for instance, when they did the all-black
Wizard of Oz, The Wiz, I imagine that in the late 60s would have been quite
radical and fun.
And wow, I can't believe they did that.
That's brilliant.
But doing it now, it's really boring because everyone is doing it.
It's basically saying group identity is everything.
And you people can't be racist.
And so they're all going to do this.
But it sometimes throws you out of the – actually, I'll tell you the worst
example.
Did you ever see Darkest Hour, the Winston Churchill film?
No.
So, you know, obviously, he took on Parliament.
He said, we're not going to appease Hitler.
There's a scene in the film.
Gary Oldman plays him.
He goes down into the tube, the underground, and he's wrestling with his
conscience.
And there's loads of black people on the tube.
There's white people too, but there's loads of black people.
And the public convince him, no, you need to stand up for Hitler.
Now, we know that Churchill wasn't – was a bit of a racist, didn't really
like the – you know, fine.
He was of his time.
I'm not saying anything more than that.
He was of his time.
But that – it was so unreal.
It was so unreal.
It was so – it was almost like the filmmakers were saying, racism's never
been a problem in the UK.
Well, actually, it has.
Like, and I kind of think this is – I kind of think this is – although it's
ostensibly progressive, I think it does the reverse.
I think it says, we never had a problem with race.
We were all wonderful, kumbaya.
No, we weren't.
And actually, the abolitionists, the Thomas Henry Huxleys of the world, the
people who had to fight for racial equality and parity, they had something to
fight against, misrepresenting stuff in the arts.
And then beyond – I'm sorry, I'm ranting now because it really bothered me
– but beyond that, it throws you out of it in a way that you suddenly think,
I'm no longer watching a film.
I'm watching a sermon.
Oh, so this happened to me last week.
Have you seen the Netflix series Ripley about the talented Mr. Ripley?
No, I have not.
Right.
Now, you remember there used to be that film with Matt Damon years ago.
It's the same story, same novel, an old Patricia Highsmith novel.
One of the main male characters in that TV – it's a brilliance – like
Andrew Scott is in it.
Performances are brilliant.
They play it hyper-realistically.
It's all black and white.
It looks beautiful.
On the Amalfi Coast, it's wonderful.
Everything's working brilliantly.
And I was thinking, this is great.
I'm not being preached at.
This is great.
Then a major male character turns up, played by a woman who calls herself non-binary.
And not only are we meant to believe that that's a man, the characters don't
notice that it's a woman in a man's clothes.
So we're meant to believe that these characters don't even – like not one –
Ripley doesn't say, why is she wearing a suit?
This is set in the 60s, by the way.
So I think if they wanted to change the novel and create a kind of – you know,
like one of those Butch Dykes of the day who used to go sort of like –
Or a dress like Ellen.
Yeah, or the androgynous type.
Those people have always existed.
Why not change the character to make it a female character who likes looking
like a man?
Why not do that?
Why tell us, you know, this is a man.
You have to believe it's a man.
Do you see what I mean?
That it throws you out of the –
It's crazy.
I no longer believe in this.
I have to stop watching it because I no longer believed in it.
Well, I think the problem – the real problem with trying to shove that down
people's throats is it creates the opposite reaction.
Right, right.
It creates homophobia, transphobia and racism because like it doesn't create it
but it makes them feel like they have a point.
Well, you've seen recently that the polls regarding gay rights in the US seem
to be going down, tumbly, support for gay rights, support for gay marriage.
We've had I think a number of states trying to overturn the gay marriage
legislation.
And the reason for all of that I think is because being gay has been tied to
this LGBTQIA identity obsessed movement that has also involved the medicalization
of kids, sterilization of kids, twerking in front of children, all of that
stuff.
And now people are saying this is because you gave us gay marriage.
This is because you let the gays marry.
And because of that you've allowed all this other stuff.
You've opened this box and everything else has tumbled out.
And that's not true.
That's not true because the fundamental point about the belief in gender
identity is it is fundamentally anti-gay as a principle.
Right.
Because what it says is, you know, I know I'm telling you something you already
know but like gay rights was predicated on the idea that there's a minority of
people in every society who are attracted innately to their own biological sex.
If you say biological sex doesn't matter and actually you've you're attracted
to a kind of gendered soul, you're attracted to an essence, you're attracted to
how someone identifies.
Well, firstly, you don't know gay people if you think that's the case.
They're not they're not attracted to how you see yourself.
Right.
They know gay men.
I don't want to be crude.
Know what a penis is.
Right.
And they know how to sniff one out.
And I think this idea, this idea that they're attracted to the way that you
perceive yourself.
Nonsense.
And not only that, then you get, you know, like in Australia at the moment, lesbians
are not allowed to gather legally if there's a man who says he's a lesbian and
wants to join them.
That is against the law in Australia now.
So you can't do that.
Wait, wait a minute.
What do you mean?
So the Australian Human Rights Commission ruled that if you are if you have an
all female event.
Right.
So like a lesbian gathering, maybe something like that.
You have to include men who identify as women.
Oh, God.
Because otherwise you are discriminated.
There was a woman who I interviewed on.
I had a show in the UK on GB News up until recently.
And I interviewed this woman called Sal Grover.
And she's an Australian woman.
Used to write for Hollywood, I think.
She created a woman's app, woman's only app.
And this was in the wake of Me Too, you know, so there's all that going on.
And she wanted to create a space for women.
And a guy called Roxanne Tickle, right?
They always have these kind of stripper names.
Is that a real name?
Roxanne Tickle wanted to get on the app, which was called Giggle.
So, by the way, this court case is called Giggle versus Tickle.
I'm not kidding.
Boy.
He said – he got on the app.
She kicked him off because it's a bloke in a dress.
And he sued and won.
And in the court case, the judge actually said sex is changeable.
Well, it's not, no matter what a guy in a wig says.
But she's now appealing and going through all this stuff just because –
It takes her life hell and then it discourages anybody else in the future from
ever contesting anything like that.
And, you know, not only that.
I mean, we've just had the other day – was it yesterday?
Did you see the girl who was – used to identify as trans, a girl called Fox Varian,
has just won $2 million in a lawsuit.
Yes, yes.
That's big because –
She was 16 years old and they chopped her breasts off.
Right.
Which is fucking horrifying.
It's the tip of the iceberg though.
Especially if you have children, you realize like they change their – the way
they think about things year to year.
And if you – children are so malleable.
It's like one of the delicate dances of being a parent is that you have to love
them but you don't want to steer them in any direction.
You want to let them be their own person.
Right.
And, you know, it's like I tried to expose my children to a bunch of different
things and find out what they enjoy.
And if you do that, you find out that they're all different.
They all like different stuff.
They just gravitate towards different things.
And if you are a domineering, overbearing, mentally ill parent, you can
convince your child almost anything.
Almost anything.
I mean this is how you get suicide bombers.
Yeah.
This is what it is because they're children.
This is why you don't get 55-year-old union guys who become suicide bombers.
They're like, what?
And of course, you know –
I get 72 virgins?
Yeah.
What?
Yeah.
Like it's not going to work.
But you can get young impressionable children and you can convince them of
almost anything.
Like convincing them that they're actually a woman in a man's body and don't
you want to be a woman?
And let's get you on hormone blockers.
It's okay, mom.
Yeah.
And then all of a sudden you're ruining this child's life.
But also, I mean there will be kids who are struggling with how they see
themselves in the world.
There's girls in particular who, you know, they're developing into women and
they don't like the sexual attention they're getting.
They'd love to identify –
It's in the Sreyer's book.
Right.
Especially autistic girls.
Well, that's another point.
So this is the other reason why I think the movement is essentially anti-gay
because, you know, the Tavistock Pediatric Clinic in London, which was an NHS
gender clinic, which has been closed as a result of the CAS review, this report
into pediatric gender care.
So there's a book by Hannah Barnes called Time to Think, which found that
between 80 and 90 percent of all adolescents referred to that clinic were same-sex
attracted.
So they were either gay or lesbian or bisexual.
Now, that means you've effectively got gay conversion therapy going on, on the
NHS.
Right.
And so, you know, I had – you know, I'm friends with a couple of lesbians who
run the LGB Alliance in London.
They have an annual conference for gay rights and they're talking about gay
rights.
You know, these young, non-binary identified people broke in, unleashed locusts
and crickets and insects, a plague of fucking locusts, into a gay rights
conference.
Isn't that the sort of thing neo-Nazis used to do?
Right.
It's insane.
So, I mean, I, you know, I think you need to have sympathy with people and
whatever they're going through.
But don't tell a child – if a child tells you, I think I'm in the wrong body,
don't say yes.
Say, that's not possible.
Human beings can't change sex.
But let's explore psychotherapeutically what needs to happen.
Let's look at Los Angeles, which is, in my opinion, one of the most mentally
ill spots in this country.
It's a very weird place.
That's why you left.
Well, I mean, I left for a bunch of reasons.
Mostly I really left because they were telling us we can't do comedy.
Oh, yeah.
Well, that'll do it.
We closed down the comedy clubs and Texas was open.
That's the primary reason.
And also restaurants and everything.
I just knew where it was going.
But the point is, like, Los Angeles is a very mentally ill place.
Like, if you just looked at, like, just the sheer numbers of people that are
medicated and fucked up.
If that's the place that's dictating the tone for the rest of the world, that's
dangerous.
Because these are a lot of people that just desperately want attention.
They desperately want to get accepted.
They have to go through the audition process so they have to change who they
are to talk to the producers to try to form themselves into something to be
accepted.
There's a disproportionate amount of trans kids that are involved in Hollywood
families.
It's largely disproportionate.
Some of them have two trans kids, three trans kids.
It's like, what the fuck is going on here?
This is not normal.
This is not no influence whatsoever.
This is – you're using that child as a virtue flag.
You're flying that child as a trans flag in the front of your porch.
I have a trans kid.
But don't you think that, like, a lawsuit like this, that's going to change
things because no one's going to ensure that kind of procedure anymore.
That's a surgeon and a psychotherapist who are now lumbered with a $2 million
bill for their negligence.
It's going to open up the floodgates for all these other lawyers to start pouncing
on all these other cases.
That's what I mean.
The horrible thing about these cases is not just that these children have their
lives ruined by these surgeries and have been sterilized and it's also that
they've been attacked so ruthlessly.
I mean you're talking about children that have made a mistake or someone coerced
them into making this mistake that's changed their body for the rest of their
life and they're getting attacked online.
Like, you imagine being a fragile child already who's willing to go through
this procedure, can't believe they did it.
Now they don't have breasts anymore.
Their voice is deep forever.
They're all fucked up.
And then people are screaming at them online.
Yeah.
It's crazy.
But, you know, this is how the satanic child abuse panic of the 80s.
Yes, exactly.
This came to an end because of lawsuits.
When they started – when they realized that these psychotherapists have been
using these leading questions, effectively telling them you've repressed the
memory.
You know, there was that book, The Courage to Heal, where it said if you think
you might have been abused, you probably were.
Like such a reckless thing to say.
And all these people accused, you know, carers, parents.
None of it was true.
But when they started suing the psychotherapists, it all collapsed.
Right.
And I wonder whether hysteria can collapse if you – actually money talks.
Well, it's already shifted in this general direction because of Elon buying
Twitter.
When Elon bought Twitter, the amount of trans-identified kids started to drop
off.
The amount of non-binary-identified kids started to drop off.
Right.
And that, I think, is a direct result of people being able to say what they
really think.
Because in the past, like my friend Megan Murphy, she was banned off of Twitter
until Elon bought it because she said a man is never a woman.
Right.
That's all she said.
Right.
A man is never a woman.
She was arguing with people about biological males who identify as women, being
able to get into women's spaces.
And she said a man is never a woman.
Banned forever.
Yeah.
So no one wanted to talk about this.
See, there was no real discourse.
And if there's no real discourse, then you can push a goofy ideology pretty
fucking far.
But as soon as people jump on board and start posting funny memes and Elon says
it's open season, do whatever you want.
Yeah.
And he calls it the woke mind virus and everybody's like piling in.
Well, then you have discourse.
And then anything that's absurd immediately gets shot down because people say,
no, this doesn't make any sense.
This is crazy.
It comes back to what you say.
You said about debate.
You said about discourse.
I mean, I just saw today just on, you know, obviously on Twitter because I'm
always on it.
But I saw John Lithgow, you know, the actor, brilliant actor, who plays Dumbledore
in the new Harry Potter thing, saying that J.K. Rowling's views are inexplicable.
Inexplicable.
It means you haven't read them.
Like J.K. Rowling is for women's rights.
And she recognizes that women's rights depend on the recognition of biological
sex for the preservation of single sex spaces.
It's as simple as that.
All he has to do is read the essay she wrote on her blog like eight years ago.
He can't even he's not even sufficiently intellectual, intellectually curious
to do that.
And he goes out and says it's inexplicable.
Women's rights and gay rights are inexplicable.
Really?
Or are you just not having the conversation?
You're just shutting yourself up and saying, well, my friends have said she's
evil.
Not criticized hard enough, but would be criticized if he supported J.K. Rowling's.
If he supported J.K. Rowling's, he would be attacked.
So it's a calculation.
Yes.
Maybe.
It's the same thing we're talking about with Hollywood being mentally ill.
Right.
It's the same thing where you have to shape your opinions based on how you'll
be accepted by the group.
It's the most group think place I've ever been in my life.
It's almost universally left leaning.
But isn't that the problem in comedy like with the U.K.?
So many people who would otherwise be innovative, subversive comics, they've
got nowhere to go.
Right.
So they just tailor their material.
Well, they come to Austin, baby.
They come to Austin like I did, right?
That's it.
They come to they come.
I and I get so sick of it because I know in America is much better.
But in the U.K., all of like my old friends from the comedy circuit who tell me
no one's self censoring.
You can say what you want.
I'm like, are you kidding?
Like the list of people I know who have had shows canceled, taken off because
they caused offense.
This week, Leo Kirst, friend of mine, had one of his shows on his tour just
deleted because some activists complained to the venue.
Right.
So it's happening all the time.
And they're ignoring this Himalayan mountain of evidence.
And they're saying it's not a thing.
But of course, people are self censoring.
What's even happening here?
Is it?
Michael Rappaport got his shows.
He got his shows canceled from Cap City Comedy Club.
Did he?
Which is our other comedy club in town, which is a great club owned by Helium.
Right.
But they were saying that he's racist because Michael Rappaport is very pro
Israel.
Right.
And apparently-
Why does that make you racist?
I don't know what he said, so I don't want to speak out of turn.
Right.
I don't know what exactly he said.
I'm going to make a small correction, I think.
Oh.
I don't think that-
She has been-
Sorry, back to the Odyssey thing.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
She has been cast in the movie, but only Twitter rumors have said what her
position in the movie is, and then everybody has ran with it.
Oh, interesting.
So she could be-
She could be anything.
Someone else.
Yeah.
A different character.
All the articles I found online said it was like social media confirmation, and
then people were just running-
Well, there we go.
Well, isn't that what I said?
What is that article that you just clicked?
This is the one I showed earlier.
But what is it from?
It starts off with the Hungarian conservative.
That's a niche.
That's a niche.
Jamie, how dare you let that sneak by?
That you didn't notice it was a Hungarian conservative?
Are you being paid by the Hungarian conservative?
It's the top thing that popped up.
Meanwhile, it's probably a fucking troll farm in Pakistan that's creating that.
Or it's probably in China or something.
All I Googled was Helena Troy Odyssey movie, and it's the very first article.
Good for the Hungarian conservative.
That's so funny.
Coming out on top of the Google search.
That's pretty good.
That's so funny.
But did I not say, I'm not sure about this.
It's a Twitter rumor.
But look, Elon Musk bought into it.
Elon Musk and Christopher Nolan has lost his integrity.
So there we go.
The dude's too busy building rockets to pay attention to what he tweets.
But this proves the point.
Like, let's not.
Oh, yeah.
He's going to take us to the moon again.
So, you know, that's all right.
No, he's not.
Isn't he?
No, Artemis is NASA.
I thought he was working with NASA.
Oh, is he working with NASA with Artemis?
Again, someone said it online and I just bought it.
Oh, well, they probably can't get there without him.
He's probably like, oh, I'll show you some things.
But that's, okay.
So that is a perfect example because I am always now, even when I mentioned
that earlier, I
was cautious, wasn't I?
Right.
Because I know, I've fallen for this so many times.
I now double check and triple check.
Yeah.
Everything.
And I wish I didn't have to, but you do have to because even the mainstream
media lie about
stuff.
Yeah.
And then Twitter rumors go absolutely mad.
But it's important when you're talking about a historical film.
Yeah, yeah.
Like, it's got to kind of, you just can't do that.
It doesn't make any sense.
Well, you sort of can.
I think an artist should be able to do what they want.
And I think if you want to, like, they do it with Shakespeare all the time.
Sorry to go back to Shakespeare.
But you rarely go and see a Shakespeare play today that hasn't been filtered
through the
prism of identity politics and changed.
Right.
But that's not the same.
That's not the same as historical figures.
Well, he wrote histories.
He wrote about kings, Henry VII, Henry V.
Yeah, but it's fiction.
Right?
Like, the thing about the Odyssey is...
That's definitely fiction.
It is sort of, but, you know, they didn't think Troy existed.
And then they found out it does.
Right.
It's a real place.
It's based on myth.
Yeah, absolutely, yeah.
But you remember, like, they thought that Troy was a completely mythological
creation.
So it's an actual, they have evidence that it was a place.
Yes.
You didn't know that?
No.
Yeah, they found it.
When did they find Troy?
It was in the 20th century.
So for the longest time...
But there wouldn't have been sirens.
And there wouldn't have been psychopsies.
And there wouldn't have...
You know what I mean?
Oh, no.
Oh, Joe.
No, psychopsies, they think, were actually elephant skulls.
That's what they think that was.
Right.
Okay.
Do you ever see an elephant skull?
I have never seen an elephant skull.
Well, you know, where the trunk is, is an enormous hole.
And they thought that that was an eyeball.
So they would find these giant skulls with, that looked like, you know, they
didn't know
what the fuck it was.
Yeah, yeah.
And they're like, oh my God, cyclopsies are real.
Fair enough.
I mean, I...
So here it is.
Evidence, legend, the city of Troy was a real place, began to emerge in the 1870s.
Henrik Schleulmann discovered large-scale excavations at the Hisarlik in
northwestern Turkey in 1870.
So when did they first start excavating?
So where is it?
It's in Turkey.
It's in Turkey, yeah.
Which is a lot of the proponents of a revising of the beginning of civilization
are now pointing
to Turkey as opposed to, like, Iraq and, you know...
Well, the Greeks were everywhere, you know?
So the Mesopotamians and the...
I mean, that doesn't surprise me.
I mean, I think the point I was making about Helen of Troy is that even if it's
not real,
even if it's not history, the myth of Helen of Troy means something quite
significant within
that story.
Yes.
So if you subvert that, the fundamental aspects of the story itself doesn't
work, and you
can't buy into the myth.
It's like if you turn the elephant man into a handsome fellow with a six-pack...
Exactly that.
And they're always repulsive.
Don't give them ideas.
Don't give them ideas that do that.
Can you show me a photograph of an elephant skull?
It's really kooky.
But you see an elephant skull, and you're like, oh, I get it.
That's why they saw it.
I could totally see you falling for that.
Yeah.
You look at it, and you go, what the fuck is that thing?
Like, look at an elephant skull.
Isn't it nutty?
Oh, completely.
Yes.
Yeah.
And it's going to be a big old beast.
Right.
So you're going to think it's a...
Big giant thing with tusks coming out of its mouth.
Yeah, yeah.
Like, look at the actual cyclops on the left.
Isn't that crazy?
Yeah.
Of course.
No, it makes sense.
It makes complete sense.
Complete sense.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You found that.
You're like, oh, my God.
Cyclopses are real.
You would think, oh, my God.
These monsters.
Isn't that funny?
What a weird-shaped skull.
So strange.
You would never think the eyeballs would be down there by the cheekbones.
That's what's weird about them.
I have to say elephant anatomy is something I'm not...
I haven't brushed up on that.
Show the photo again.
Look at that photo where the eyeballs are.
The eyeballs are where the cheekbones are.
See?
See the little circular holes where the cheeks are?
Now, when you see an elephant in the flesh...
Show me a photograph of an elephant.
Just an elephant.
So, see where their eyeballs are?
Isn't that crazy?
That's not how you think of them, is it?
No.
Well, they're so strange.
Aren't they?
Give me that second one on the left.
Yeah, look at that.
Click on that.
What a wild animal.
They're amazing.
Have you never seen one of those before?
You'd be like, whoa.
Only in a zoo.
Crazy.
I rode one in Thailand.
No.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yeah, I don't recommend it.
I don't think I should ride them.
My whole family wanted to do it.
I didn't want to do it.
I felt like it was exploiting them.
But they're very sweet.
They're gentle, aren't they?
Yeah.
They're pleasant creatures.
It's a whole process.
So, one of the things you do when you go to Thailand is you take care of them
first.
Yeah.
You don't just hop on them.
You feed them.
Right, right.
So, you give them a bunch of sugar cane and you pet them and they teach you to
like – so
that the animal understands you have a gentle spirit.
But that – it's intelligence, right?
It's because they're smart.
They're very smart.
It's not like –
Also, they'll fucking kill you.
Oh, they are scary beasts.
Stomp you to death.
But they're not like the hippo.
The hippo will kill you.
You cannot do that with a hippo.
So – and I believe the reason why hippos are so dangerous – we think they're
really
cute and fat, but they are fucking dangerous and they can run fast and they
can tear you apart and they will.
The key difference, I believe, is the intelligent thing.
Elephants are really smart and hippos are really stupid.
Yeah.
And you can also become friends with an elephant.
Yes.
Like you can actually take care of an elephant and be kind to an elephant and
that elephant
will like be gentle.
They'll remember.
Yeah.
They come up to you and – so you feed them sugar cane and you talk to them.
You say, hey, buddy.
How are you?
And you pet them and you wash them.
You wash them.
You do all kinds of different things with them.
You brush them so it feels good for them.
You're going to have an elephant soon, aren't you?
No, I would never have an elephant.
I'd be friends with an elf, but he'd have to be wild.
Like I just don't agree with any of that.
What, having them in zoos and things?
No, I hate it.
I do as well, yeah.
I think if you're going to have animals, you should have a gigantic area that
is a true
ecosystem that they exist in naturally.
Yeah.
And then people can maybe venture into that ecosystem and explore it.
I felt that way.
I was at the zoo recently in Arizona and I felt that.
So depressing.
I felt – there was one jaguar pacing obsessive.
I just felt – it's like going to – you know, like in the Elizabethan era,
they used
to go to Bedlam to watch the people who were mad as an entertainment thing.
It felt a little bit like we were doing that.
I have far too much appreciation for the wild.
Yeah, yeah.
You know, I have animals that are contained at my house, but they have been
watered down
by selective breeding to the point where they can't even – like I have a King
Charles
Spaniel.
He's this tiny little fellow.
Yeah, yeah.
Like he's incapable of doing anything.
Right.
Like he's just a little cutie pie.
You can't unleash him into the wild.
Right.
And I have a golden retriever who thinks everybody's his best friend.
Like –
Did you see the guy who kept a hippo from birth and then it ate him?
And then it killed him.
It ate him.
Yeah.
So, you know, like –
Got annoyed.
Understand that you're dealing with a creature that doesn't see the world that
you do, you
know?
Yeah.
There's a lot of animals that you can breed up until – you can rather have
them in
your home.
Chimps, famously.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Up until a certain point and then they decide, I want to rip your face off.
I don't like you anymore.
Oh, I'm sure – if cats were as big as we are, they'd probably do the same.
Well, they would just eat you.
They would, okay.
They would kill you 100%.
The only reason why we have a relationship with cats is because they're too
small to
eat us.
Yeah.
That's it.
Cats are great because they're convenient.
They do what they want.
They're sweet.
They're sweet.
I love cats.
But, I mean, you can't have a fucking giant one.
Yeah.
But you can if you take care of them from the time that they're cubs.
Yeah.
And most of the time they don't kill you.
Yeah.
But then you get a little Siegfried and Roy action and it just decides, for
whatever reason,
I'm going to drag that dude away with his neck.
Yeah.
But, you know, these sorts of pleasures, you know, life with animals and this
sort of thing
is going to matter more and more to us, I think, when the robots take over.
Yeah.
Well, we might have to live with them.
We might be wild and the robots might take over the cities.
We might be forced to be nomadic tribes again.
I think they might see us.
We have no impact whatsoever on the environment.
You can only live a subsistence lifestyle as a hunter-gatherer with primitive
tools when
the robots would no longer allow you.
You can hunt, but you have to make your own bows and arrows.
We're like, what?
I can't possibly do that.
So they're going to see us as pets?
Yeah.
Yeah, they're going to treat us the way I want to treat elephants.
So I want elephants to exist in a contained ecosystem where they live naturally.
And they're going to say, you can't have cars anymore.
You can't have any of these things.
Well, that's a good point, though, isn't it?
So all the stuff I've been reading at the moment about AI is saying that AI won't
wipe
us out because it will see us in the way we see animals and the way we see pets.
It's that we think you're sweet and stupid, but we like having you around.
We'll tolerate you.
Is that the way it's going to go?
I think we're going to be forced to integrate.
In what way?
Integrate technologically.
Like, I think we already are.
Like, Elon's famously made the point that you're already a cyborg.
You have your phone that you just carry around with you everywhere.
And then with Neuralink, it'll be inside your body.
And then whatever...
I wouldn't.
I'm not letting that happen.
You won't in the beginning, the first iterations.
A lot of people won't.
But if it makes your life measurably better, and it's a simple procedure that's
non-invasive,
you know, it's like a simple thing that they plug into the back of your head.
Well, I'd be like a cyborg warrior.
Is that what you're saying?
Well, you would probably be connected to artificial intelligence, and it would
greatly enhance your
cognitive function.
Okay.
And greatly enhance your access to information.
It would be instantaneous.
You would no longer have to read.
You would just have all the information.
It would just completely change the way you store information, because you
would probably
have some sort of an external hard drive that connects to you.
It would be something where your memory is no longer fallible, but it's now infallible.
Okay.
It's going to be a perfect 4K memory or 8K memory.
You're going to be able to rewind.
I mean, it was not an episode of Dark Mirror where they rewind their memories.
There's an interesting twist on this AI space.
Remember, you sent me that bot thing that was going around this week.
Yeah.
Oh, did you see this week?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
This is what we're talking about.
So this is a new twist on it, I think.
If this is real, because grain of salt could be bullshit, I'll just say that.
Like the Odyssey thing.
Yeah.
But if this is real, these bots have made a website where the other bots can
rent a human
to do tasks that the bots cannot physically do.
Well, that's slavery.
No, renting.
It's like jobs.
It's like a task rabbit.
You're renting a human being.
A human has put themselves on this website.
Oh, humans put themselves on it.
For abilities to do whatever they want.
It's like gig economy.
Yeah, get paid your way.
Robot bosses.
Is this the thing where-
Here's the stuff that they need done.
The robots are inventing their own language that we can't read.
It's on this website, right?
Sort of.
Yeah, I don't, that's again, whether or not someone could have made this site
to try to
go viral, I'll just go with a grain of salt with that.
Yeah.
But they might not have in the bots.
Meat space.
Yeah, we live in the meat space.
Rent a human dot AI is fun.
Okay.
That's fun.
Well, you know, so the other thing is real though, right?
The AI chat room where these AI agents have joined and now it's-
Yes and no.
Yes and no?
What do you mean?
Some of it, they are creating a space, but I've already seen places where
people are taking
advantage of it for viral reasons.
For instance, let's just assume it's real.
There was like a polymarket bet that, oh shit, what was it?
Someone, one of these bots would sue.
Right.
So someone actually just like went ahead and filed a lawsuit on behalf of their
bot and
made it look like the bot did the thing.
Oh, so they can win the polymarket bet?
Yeah, exactly.
How regulated is that polymarket stuff?
Because it seems like you could get away with a lot.
It depends how much money is available.
As far as I know, it's just like if I put up 20 bucks for a bet now, there's
only 20 bucks
in the market.
So that's all that exists and more people have to back it up to make more money
involved.
Right.
But if you have something where you have inside knowledge of it, is there any
regulation?
There's supposed to be rules on the bets.
If I create one of those rules, I think there's a caveat.
You can't have knowledge of it.
That can cancel the bet or I think if they find out later, I don't know.
Is you go to jail or what happens?
I don't know, jail, you probably just have to lose back the bet or you just
probably go
to like a civil lawsuit or something like that.
I don't know about jail.
Interesting.
I don't know if it's in law.
You know, the UFC is plagued with this issue.
They actually canceled a fight recently because there was suspicious betting.
And so there's been one fight.
So here's the story.
Okay.
One guy apparently was injured and his teammates knew he was injured.
And so everyone started placing a bet for him to lose in the first round.
Right.
Because he apparently had a bad knee injury.
And so he knew that he couldn't fight.
And so the idea was, let's make a lot of money betting on me because he was the
favorite.
He would go in there or betting against me.
And so he would go in there and throw a kick, fall down, injured, get beat up.
They'd stop the fight.
And then all these people that knew he was injured make a ton of money.
And he was in on it.
Like he told them.
Allegedly.
Okay.
I just want to say allegedly.
Okay.
Okay.
But it's enough so that the team was removed from the UFC roster.
Like if you are competing for that team, you no longer can fight in the UFC.
You have to find a new gym.
Right.
The coach was no longer allowed to coach.
The fighter was banned.
And so then the FBI got involved and they said, well, there's a bunch of
different fights
that are suspicious.
So then a bunch of fighters came out and said, hey, somebody offered me $70,000
to lose.
And I said, no.
Yeah.
And so then there was a fight recently between Michael Johnson and Alexander
Hernandez, which
is a fight I was really looking forward to.
That was canceled last minute.
And I was like, what's going on?
They said, suspicious betting activity.
And so someone was saying that Alexander Hernandez was injured and a bunch of
money came on him
to lose.
He was actually a favorite going into the fight.
And that therefore rigged it?
Nope.
Didn't rig it because the FBI was informed.
I believe they were informed, but the UFC was informed.
And the UFC pulled the fight.
So they said, because of this suspicious betting activity, because a lot of
late minute money
came in on this one guy to win, we're going to pull this fight from the card
and not allow
this fight to take place and do a thorough investigation.
Because something seems wrong because of the previous fight that they know was
fixed.
But fighters have been doing that for ages, haven't they?
I mean, that's a thing that they've always done.
Yeah.
How does that connect, then, to the AI element, this website?
Well, we were talking about betting.
Oh, I see.
We were talking about polymarket.
We weren't talking about AI.
I was trying to connect the-
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We were talking about polymarket bets and whether or not it's legal to have
inside information.
But they've all, I mean, I know that-
Polymarket privileged users made millions betting on war strikes and diplomatic
strategy.
What did they know beforehand?
Privileged users.
Right.
So imagine if you're someone who's an aide to the Pentagon.
You know, you're working there and you know that we are going to bomb Iran.
Yeah, yeah.
And then there's a polymarket thing about it no one else knows.
Okay, okay, yes.
You know?
I mean, that's been going on forever, though, hasn't it?
People have always done that.
They've always manipulated.
That's a plot in Pulp Fiction, isn't it?
Where Bruce Willis' character bets on something he knows he's going to-
He loses the fight deliberately.
He throws a fight.
So that he can make the money off it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's that kind of thing.
Yeah, yeah.
That's always gone on.
But this polymarket thing is new because you can kind of-
There's Kalshi and then there's DraftKings has it now.
Yeah, it's not actually gambling is the difference here.
You're speculating.
Yeah, you're not taking money from the book or the house or whatever.
You're betting against each other.
Right.
But the fact that they know about it and they know it's happening,
that means they'll be able to crack down on it.
But I don't know because there's a lot of-
There's so many options and possibilities.
Like, unless you make a gigantic score and people start getting suspicious,
if you're not greedy about it and you just kind of sneak around a little bit
here,
a little bit there, I bet you could probably make a lot of money doing that.
But do you think fighters and people like that and sports people generally,
I mean, they're too proud, aren't they, to let something like that go just for
money?
No.
No?
No, that's not true.
Okay.
It depends on how much money they're making.
Look, if you're Anthony Joshua, I'd say, yeah, you're not going to do that.
You're very wealthy.
But if you're a guy who's on the undercard and you're only getting $10,000 to
fight,
but someone's giving you $100,000 to lose.
Yeah, okay.
And you say, okay, I'm just going to box shitty tonight.
Guys have done that forever.
Yeah, I guess so.
Just don't knock this guy out, whatever you do.
Carry him or carry him to the 10th round.
Yeah.
You know, there's a lot of that going on where they say, I have a bet that you're
going to knock him out in the 10th round.
So knock him out in the 10th round only.
I don't think you'll ever be able to stop that.
No.
If that's going to happen.
No, I don't think so either.
I mean, that's gone on forever.
Yeah, yeah.
But isn't fighting like a kind of vocation, like a creative vocation for a lot
of people?
Well, it is creative, believe it or not, because movement is creative.
Yeah.
You know, when you're fighting, you're not just running at each other.
Some guys do.
But the really good guys don't just run at each other and charge.
There's feints and deception.
There's movement.
Yeah, yeah.
There's certain things that they're doing where they're reading your movement
and trying to guide you in a particular direction and set you up.
I can believe it.
Boxers call it setting traps.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's like playing, you've got to bluff.
Yes.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, there's a lot of feinting involved in fighting.
There's a lot of like fake movement to get you to react and then they kick you
when you settle in.
You know, it's really creative.
You know, it's just why like, was it Faye Dunaway?
No.
Who was it that said, you know, the older woman that said, and we're talking
about the arts, and I don't mean mixed martial arts.
God, who was that?
What, like a kind of snobbish thing about Glenn Close?
No, it wasn't her.
It was the lady from Bridges of Madison County.
Who was that?
That's Meryl Streep.
Meryl Streep.
That's who it was.
Yeah, Meryl Streep said that.
It was like, it pissed off so many martial arts people.
Why?
That Meryl Streep doesn't like that?
Did she say, I'm not talking about mixed martial arts.
Like, who thought you were?
Yeah.
Who thought you were, Meryl?
That's crazy.
But also, even though it's violent, you think it's not art, just because you
don't understand it.
If you understood it, it is art, and it is in fact like a beautiful, some
performances are beautiful.
Well, it's choreography, right?
Yeah.
In a way.
Well, it's not choreography at all.
It's ad-libbing in the moment.
I mean, there's preconceived motions that you have that you're hoping that if
the guy does this, you're going to do that, and sometimes it works out.
Yeah.
But it's like the poetry of movement of a really sublime fighter, like Anderson
Silva in his prime.
Yeah.
It was beautiful to watch, you know?
I believe you.
You know, I have very limited experience of this.
I did kung fu when I was 12, and I stopped because I got so bruised.
Oh, well, there you go.
I got so hurt, I was too cowardly.
But, you know, people impose their own standards on other people and their own
ideas of what things are, you know, from the outside, and, you know, it's kind
of silly.
Yeah.
Oh, Joe, I was going to tell you about this Berkeley thing, and I almost felt...
Oh, yeah, that's right, that's right.
We got onto...
Sidetracked.
We got onto elephants.
But I think...
It was a natural segue, because I think this encapsulates all of the stuff you
were talking about,
which is that I was going to this, basically, Charlie Kirk's tour.
Yes.
It was meant to go on.
Berkeley was the last date.
And Rob Schneider had agreed to do it.
And apparently he'd said to Charlie, you know, what's the craziest place you
could take me to?
And he said, Berkeley.
Berkeley's going to be the craziest.
Let's do that.
So he was already booked to do it.
After what happened with Charlie, Rob asked me if I'd come along as well.
And so we'd be on a panel.
And I had no idea of the extent of the problem, right?
So, and I'm sure you know a lot more than I do.
You know, but I turned up.
We were there.
We turned up, and there were men with guns.
We were, you know, in an SUV under the ground.
We got into this venue.
And suddenly the security starts showing me footage from outside.
And people are, it's like a war zone.
People are throwing smoke bombs.
They're trying to crash through the railings.
Some guy gets beaten up.
He's covered in blood because he was wearing a T-shirt with Turning Point
written on it.
And I'm suddenly realizing, you know what?
This is a fantasy world that we're now occupying.
We're now occupying a world where the people outside think the world is this.
And what's going on inside is completely disconnected from it.
And I actually found it quite depressing.
Because when I was sitting on stage talking to Rob and Peter Boghossian and
Frank Turek,
these people of completely different viewpoints, we're just having a chat.
Outside, they're smashing things.
They're screaming.
They're saying that fascists have overrun the university.
And I'm thinking, just to come back to that point you made about, you know,
that need for discussion.
That experience made me think, actually, now what's happening is we're living
in two separate worlds at the same time.
And we can't see what the other side is, what the intentions of the other side
are.
And I don't know how you resolve that.
I think that, to me, sort of encapsulated the entire problem.
Well, at this point, it's going to be very difficult to resolve.
And I honestly think it's going to take a generation to work through it.
But isn't it as simple as people learning what the word fascist means, for
instance?
It's not just that.
It's like they firmly believe that they are trying to fight against something
that is going to destroy democracy in this country, which is conservative
values.
But we had that with the No Kings.
So there's a No Kings march.
And I couldn't figure that out.
I was trying to figure out what are they – this is an elected leader.
Well, you know it's all organized, right?
You know this is all funded.
I don't know.
Okay, it is.
So this was Mike Benz's point when he was talking about the defunding of USAID
and what they use that money for.
NGOs get a bunch of money and they fund a bunch of things, particularly in
other countries, where they're essentially making it look like there's these on-the-ground
street protests that are very organic.
But it's not.
It's very organized and it's very funded.
And the idea is to start chaos.
So I've seen people get caught out, people who are clearly being paid, who
appear at various different things.
It's not just that.
It's also email campaigns.
It's indoctrinating people into this particular ideology by supporting
universities.
So you fund it in advance.
Yeah, yeah.
So it's like decades of – and this is – I'm sure you've seen the Russian
guy from 1984, 1985, Yuri Besmanov, talking about the –
Remind me.
You've never seen it?
I don't think I've seen it.
It's a wonderful video because it shows you exactly what happened, how they're
going to introduce Marxism and Leninism into universities.
And then it will indoctrinate children and then those children will be poisoned
and within one generation, it will ruin the United States' entire educational
system.
So that's the long march.
Yeah, that's the long – but you should watch a little bit of this because it's
crazy because back then, I remember the 1980s.
That would be a crazy idea.
No, universities are where people have free thought and discussion.
It's very important.
Yeah, yeah.
You know, and I was in a very left-leaning place at the time.
I was living in Boston.
You know, and it's like probably more universities per capita than anywhere
else in the country, at least at the time.
And it was a very well-read city.
Like the idea that universities are going to destroy the way human beings
interact and debate is like preposterous.
But this guy was talking about this back then that the Soviets had planned this
in advance and that they had essentially subverted our entire education system
and thereby would – those people would leave those schools indoctrinated and
enter into the workforce with these new ideas in universal acceptance that
these ideas are correct.
And then it would in turn, you know, the butterfly effect.
But do you think that everyone – I don't – I can't be sure that it's as
conspiratorial as that because there must have been a lot of, you know, people
who just got on board with this without –
Well, there's a lot of money involved in doing this.
Right.
There's a lot of funds that have come from China.
There's a lot of money that has been donated to these universities.
Like find that video.
Weirdly – okay, I found it, but there's like a second version on Twitter I've
never seen before.
An AI moderated one.
No, no.
It's just like a different version.
He's now in a wig.
Oh, I recognize him.
So listen to what he says.
It's spent on espionage as such.
The other 85% is a slow process, which we call either ideological subversion or
active measures,
активные мероприятия in the language of the KGB, or
psychological warfare.
What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every
American to such an extent
that despite of the abundance of information, no one is able to come to
sensible conclusions
in the interests of defending themselves, their families, their community, and
their country.
It's a great brainwashing process, which goes very slow, and it's divided in
four basic stages.
The first one being demoralization.
It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation.
Why that many years?
Because this is the minimum number of years which requires to educate one
generation of students
in the country of your enemy, exposed to the ideology of the enemy.
In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads
of at least
three generations of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced
by the basic
values of Americanism, American patriotism.
The result?
The result you can see.
Most of the people who graduated in the 60s, dropouts or half-baked
intellectuals,
are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service,
business, mass media, educational system.
You are stuck with them.
You cannot get rid of them.
They are contaminated.
They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern.
You cannot change their mind.
Even if you expose them to authentic information, even if you prove that white
is white and black is black,
you still cannot change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.
In other words, these people, the process of demoralization is complete and
irreversible.
To get rid of society of these people, you need another 20 or 15 years to
educate a new generation
of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor
and in the interests
of the United States society.
And yet these people who have been programmed and, as you say, in place and who
are favorable
to an opening with the Soviet concept, these are the very people who would be
marked for extermination
in this country?
Most of them, yes.
Simply because the psychological shock, when they will see in future what the
beautiful society
of equality and social justice means in practice, obviously, they will revolt.
They will be very unhappy, frustrated people and the Marxist-Leninist regime
does not tolerate
these people.
Obviously, they will join the links of dissenters, dissidents, unlike in the
present United States.
There will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America.
Here you can get popular like Daniel Ellsberg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda
for being dissident,
for criticizing your Pentagon.
In future, these people will be simply squashed like cockroaches.
Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful, noble ideas of
equality.
This they don't understand and it will be greatest shock for them, of course.
The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already
for the last
25 years.
Actually, it's over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas
where previously not even
Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous
success.
Most of it is done by Americans to Americans.
Thanks to lack of moral standards.
As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore.
A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information.
The facts tell nothing to him.
Even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents,
with pictures.
Even if I take him by force to the Soviet Union and show him concentration camp,
he will refuse
refuse to believe it until he is going to receive a kick in his fat bottom.
When a military boot crashes his body, then he will understand, but not before
that.
That's the tragic of the situation of demoralization.
Okay.
Yeah.
Pretty fucking accurate.
Well, he's describing the situation as it is at the moment, right?
And he's describing it in 1984.
However, that doesn't prove that intention to create that kind of chaos, that
it was implemented
and executed in the way that he describes.
He's described the outcome.
He's a KGB agent.
Yeah.
But I suppose what I mean by that is-
He's talking about a program that they implemented.
So they had actual people in universities, planted in universities to
deliberately execute
this idea.
Yeah.
And they planned it in advance.
This is what he was saying.
And he's saying this before we even realized that it happened.
I agree.
That's scary.
It is scary because it did happen.
But that doesn't fully explain why it caught on.
Why did academics who were clearly not plants, why did they catch on with this
stuff?
Well, they don't live in the fucking real world.
This is the problem with academics.
They go right from universities to teaching positions.
I mean, this whole-
They don't have any real world experience.
I mean, this whole idea of the long march through the institutions, it's there
in Rude
Deutsche.
It's there.
It was said, we're going to do this.
We're going to infiltrate the major organizations, institutions, the church.
Yeah.
We're going to, over a very long period of time, change society in the way that
we want
to see it.
Yeah.
I think what's happened is, I think that intention was there.
I think what he's saying is very eerily describing what's happening now, the
demoralization
and the detachment from truth.
But I don't think it necessarily came about as systematically as that.
How do you think it came about?
Well, for one thing, I think what we're facing now isn't quite the template
that Marx would
have had in mind, right?
Because for one thing, there's no emphasis on class or money or the economy or
anything.
Well, insofar as Marxism has become about group identity, in terms of the left,
have substituted-
Right, but eat the rich is a giant mantra that people chant in the streets.
That's true.
That's true.
They're trying to tax billionaires.
They're people who are-
But it's incoherent because it's from people who've got money.
It's from the upper middle classes.
It doesn't have to be coherent.
It's all just something, a narrative that you give the unwashed masses and then
they run
with it.
Well, I wonder whether it caught on partly through what became fashionable,
what became
trendy, but also because any ideology says to you, you don't have to do any
thinking anymore.
You can outsource that to us.
You've got a set of rules, and these are the rules that you've got.
People love that.
Well, it's why you've got people who are-
Well, it's why you've got queers for Palestine.
Right.
You know, that can only exist when you're following a set of rules and not
thinking about it for
two seconds, right?
Yeah, that's a wonderful group.
I actually thought that was fake when I first heard about it, which must be
about five years
ago.
You've seen the other meme?
I thought it was unreal.
Have you seen that meme?
Which one?
Queers for Palestine and then Palestine for queers.
Oh, and I imagine-
And they're throwing people off rules.
Of course they are.
Of course they are.
I just say, go there and see what you see.
See what you experience.
Go there as a man in a dress wearing lipstick with a beard.
Good luck.
Yeah, I just did a Titania tweet of a drag queen touring the Middle East, and
she's touring
all these venues, and she's got the sort of Palestine dress and the sort of the
glam kind
of Arabic look.
It's like, just go there and see what happens.
But that kind of cognitive dissonance can only work if you are ideologically
driven.
And I suppose what I mean is, I think the appeal of ideology is what explains,
not a kind
of, we've implanted these agents here, they're going to lead to this, they're
going to lead
to this.
It has to also be complicity.
Of course, but that comes from implanting ideas.
Those ideas take hold, and then groupthink takes it from there.
But isn't it a shame that universities of all places, the place where you go to
be challenged,
and the way, the place where you go, I mean, I was thinking that when I was at
Berkeley, and
I, you know, I was sitting on the stage, and there's all these men with guns
all around
the theatre, because of course, what happened with Charlie.
And I'm thinking, it's like the end of the Blues Brothers, you know, where you're
on stage,
and all the people are waiting, and it felt weird.
And I thought, this is not, this is not what a university is, or should be.
And the other thing that I thought is, a lot of those people outside protesting
weren't
students, they'd sort of come in, they'd been bussed in.
So maybe that feeds into what you were saying about, you know, this is all
planned.
100%.
Planned and kind of.
How are they getting bussed in?
Who's funding them?
Right.
People are paying a lot of money to do that.
Right.
And they're doing it all over the country.
To what end?
But they did it during the presidential elections.
Yeah.
During the presidential elections, they were tracking cell phones from place to
place.
Right.
And they realized that there was a group of people that were paid attendees at
Kamala Harris's
rallies.
Oh, yeah.
I remember that.
And so they were getting paid.
Their job was to show up and cheer for Kamala Harris.
Do you think fundamentally, then, the Democrats are anti-democratic?
I think fundamentally, anybody that doesn't have organic support is going to
figure out a way
in this environment to drum it up.
Right.
And if you can do that through a service, or if you can do that through an NGO,
or if you
can do that through a company that'll hire people to show up at your rallies,
they do it because
they want to win and they want to get into a position of power.
And one of the things that we do find with Trump is that it actually turns out
the president
can do a lot.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You know?
And we used to think that they were kind of handcuffed and they weren't able to
do as
much and that's why nothing ever got done.
Turns out that doesn't seem to be true.
You get a maniac in office, you can kind of get away with a lot of things.
You can do a lot of different things.
That's what we sort of need in the UK.
We need someone to come in and strip away.
Well, we need what Bezmanov was saying is that we need to kind of a whole
generation
that teaches that being patriotic and having morals and ethics is actually a
good thing.
Yeah.
And that free speech is important and that to be able to debate ideas is
essential to
any sort of true society that considers itself an elevated modern version of
what we hope
for when this country was founded.
It wasn't founded on the idea that you have to adhere to one ideology and this
ideology
thinks that gender is not real and no one can answer what a woman is.
That's crazy that that's become popular.
Well, we see in America, like America is the kind of life raft of the world
that you've
got all these things built into your political system.
Yeah.
And that's why it's so scary when you see people.
Do you remember the vice presidential debate between J.D. Vance and Tim Waltz?
And Tim Waltz said that the First Amendment doesn't cover hate speech.
It doesn't cover misinformation.
He's a dangerous fuck.
Like, that's scary.
If the guy who might be vice president is saying, actually, we're going to
strip out all of this
stuff.
Also, just the way he behaves is so odd.
The way he waves and runs on stage, it's all just so fake and performative.
Yeah, yeah.
I don't know any men like that that aren't dangerous.
Why was he picked?
Probably because of the Minnesota stuff.
It probably had something to do with what he was allowing to happen in
Minnesota.
They were probably making a ton of money.
Right.
Okay.
Maybe.
There's a reason why he had to resign.
I mean, I'm clearly speculating.
I have no idea.
And I'm a moron when it comes to politics.
But what I would assume is that for sure he was informed of this fraud long in
advance.
Right, right.
If it wasn't for that Nick Shirley kid and those videos, and apparently Nick
Shirley had
been informed by the GOP there that this was all going on.
So this gets exposed.
It gets into the public zeitgeist.
It becomes a huge news story.
It's not a coincidence that the riots break out in the exact same place where
all this
fraud is being exposed.
Of course, of course.
Because ICE is everywhere.
Yeah.
They're all over the place.
But it's not.
The most violent interactions are the interactions that are happening in the
place where the most
fraud has been publicly exposed.
Yeah.
It's all, this is all by design.
There's something very scary about it.
Yeah.
And so this guy knew about it in advance.
How do we know?
Well, one way we know is because he's resigning.
So there must be something.
Right.
There's something.
He's not running for governor again.
He was in the process of running for governor.
He's decided to step out of public office entirely now.
Yeah, yeah.
So maybe they told him, if you do not step out, you are going to be prosecuted.
We know what you did.
Yeah.
Or maybe he's going to fucking turn state's evidence.
Who fucking knows?
Imagine if he'd have won, him and Kamala Harris, if they would have been in
charge.
Oh, God.
I don't think I would have come here.
Well, what if Elon doesn't buy Twitter and Kamala Harris wins and Tim Walsh is
our vice
president?
Well, doesn't that just tell you how fragile freedom is?
Fragile.
How close you are.
Very fragile.
And that's why people support Donald Trump and the people that think that they
support
him because he's a racist and all these different things.
No, no, no.
They support it because it's an alternative to what we all saw coming.
Yeah, yeah.
Exactly.
No one's excited that ICE is killing people in the streets.
No one likes that.
No, of course not.
You have to be fucking insane if you think those people should be just getting
shot like
that.
That's nuts.
But what they don't want is what the government was previously doing.
They had a completely open border.
They were busing people into swing states.
They were trying to pretend that this was all organic.
And it's not.
Yeah.
It's not.
They had a plan.
They did it in a sneaky way where they looked like the really kind, ethical,
equitable and
inclusive crowd.
Right.
Well, that's the woke story all over again.
Exactly.
You know.
It was the woke stories applied to geopolitics.
It was a woke stories applied to the whole political process in this country
was dependent
upon the census, which the census doesn't count citizens.
The census just counts humans.
Yeah.
And so you get more congressional seats, you get more electoral points.
The whole thing is nuts.
I mean, I like to think that not all Democrats are into that.
Not all Democrats are about the power for its own sake.
Of course not.
But the problem is it's a party.
Like if you work for a corporation and you're a good person, but the
corporation is polluting
a river in Guatemala, there's a diffusion of responsibility because you're a
part of a giant
system.
And hey, I'm just an accountant.
I go to work and I do my thing for Exxon or Mobil or whatever it is.
Yeah.
Well, I'd say for however messy all of this has become in the US, at least you
have had
some sort of attempt to strip out the very stuff that that guy was talking
about.
The fact that the civil service is all one way, the fact that the machinery of
government,
that was the plan, right?
So the machinery of government works in a certain way.
So there's no democratic means of getting rid of it.
There's no way to change it.
Well, I think the counter to that is the education that the internet provides.
And that's where they didn't anticipate in 1984.
So the education that the internet provides is untethered.
But then the internet tells us that Christopher Nolan's just made a film with
the Black Helen
of Troy.
Right.
And he hasn't.
It all, it produces all sorts of unsavory things too.
Yeah.
But it also allows the distribution of information that would be impossible
through normal means
if these people are, as he said, in control of major media.
Which they were in control of universities, which they are.
And then it goes on to be the only way people get information.
Now your information is very heavily filtered.
And then all that stuff works.
So that's why the technocrats in the EU, why ideologues generally are against
internet or they want to censor it.
That's why Macron is trying to stop X in France or whoever's trying to stop it.
So the EU, the head of the EU commission is Ursula von der Leyen.
Did you hear her?
It's a great name, by the way.
Well, yeah.
It's a sexy name, right?
Yeah.
She's unelected.
The European commission is an unelected body that sets the legislative agenda
of all these
European countries.
Absolutely crazy.
You can't vote them out.
She did a speech last May where she said, and I'm not joking about this.
She said that misinformation was like a virus and you need to inoculate
yourself against
the virus.
And the phrase she used is not debunking, pre-bunking.
So pre-bunking is her idea of what you do with misinformation.
What she means is censorship.
But pre-bunking is the most sinister.
That's crazy.
Chill it.
Like if you were to say, I'm going to come up with the most Orwellian, sort of
dark lord
kind of Sith.
Pre-bunking.
Pre-bunking.
Yeah.
That's like fucking minority report, right?
Pre-crime.
I don't know what the, because I know that there's this free speech debate
opening up between
the US and Europe generally.
You know when J.D. Vance came over to Munich and gave that talk to all the
European leaders
and said, you've got to stop censoring your people.
You've got to stop running away from voters.
And they were shocked.
Yeah.
And they were horrified.
But he was dead right.
He's dead right.
And he should.
And you know what?
People on the left should admit that he's dead right as well.
But there's something about Europe, right?
There's something about, like I think over here, coming over here, I get the
sense that
even if most left-leaning people as well as right-leaning people do value free
speech
as a kind of shared value.
And in Europe, it's not that.
There's a real sense of, we can't trust the masses.
Because I know that the EU is seen as this big lefty thing, which it absolutely
is not.
The EU is a body that wants to censor its citizens.
It's a body that tells people, you can have a referendum, but if you get it
wrong, we're
going to make you vote again.
It's not a democratic organization.
So no wonder Vance is sort of, and Trump is at loggerheads with this body.
Because you've got these, we in the UK have a authoritarian leader, Keir Starmer,
the prime
minister.
He couldn't be further away from the American ideal of free speech.
He introduced this online safety bill, which is basically, this is why a lot of
tweets in
the UK, if you go to the UK now, a lot of the tweets will come up saying this
is potentially
harmful content.
So we're screening it out.
He, you know, they're trying to get rid of juries for certain trials.
Yeah, they did get rid of juries.
Right?
They already did.
And that's particularly dangerous because some of those cases are for speech
crime.
Right?
So I'll give you an example.
There was a Royal Marine called Jamie Michael who had made a video just saying
we need to
peacefully protest against the migration issue.
They took him to court for stirring up racial hatred.
But the jury is what let him off.
It was the jury that saved him.
In this new system, there wouldn't be a jury there and he would be in prison.
Yeah.
And most certainly would be in prison.
So I kind of feel like, and we've got Keir Starmer now for another three years.
Every decision that he makes is about not trusting the public, censoring what
they think.
If he could get rid of X, he absolutely would.
Is it possible that someone sensible could win in three years?
Or is the system so deeply entwined in the ideology of the English people that
it's just stuck?
This is what I think about that.
Because I look at America and I think, in a way, you had your culture war
election because
of Trump, right?
Yeah.
You know, I mean, a lot of people say the culture war doesn't matter.
Of course it does.
Of course it matters.
I mean, did you see about that, the advert that the GOP put out, you know, Kamala
Harris
is for they, them, Trump is for you.
That was the slogan.
It was about the Democrats wanting to fund transgender surgery for prisoners.
And Donald Trump's team had this advert, Kamala Harris for they, them, Donald
Trump is for
you.
That actuated a 2.7 shift in favor of Donald Trump among everyone who saw it.
It was a major success.
That just shows that these issues, these cultural issues, people do care and
people do vote.
But you had a way in America to vote that stuff out through Trump, right?
We've never had that.
We've had...
But they barely had a way.
Like, if they had more time, they wouldn't have.
You mean that if the Democrats had...
Like, if the Democrats won this time and then they tried to do it again in 2028,
Elon was
really adamant about that during the last election.
Like, this might be the last real election we have if you don't stop this now.
Because they have an open border and in the last four years, they've pulled 10,
at least
10 million people into this country.
And they've changed the electoral map.
Yeah, yeah.
And then on top of that, there was both Schumer and Nancy Pelosi openly talking
about letting
these people vote.
Openly talking about giving these people a path to citizenship.
And they had already put them on Medicaid.
They had already put them on Social Security.
They were giving them EBT cards.
They were housing them at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City.
They were giving them money and helping them get to these states.
Right.
They were flying them through into America and putting them in these places
because they
were trying to get voters.
So another four years.
Another four years.
They might have had it completely locked up.
You know, that's what the Democrats have said about the Republicans.
I mean, Oprah Winfrey was saying this might be the last election we have if we
don't vote
for...
If we don't vote for Kamala Harris.
Oprah Winfrey had Donald Trump on her show years ago and was asking him to be
president.
Yeah, they were mates, weren't they?
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Look, they all get captured.
They all get captured by groupthink and ideology and they all get captured by
money and protecting
it and who's going to protect them and...
But we don't have that safety valve in the UK.
So like I say, you were able to...
For all the imperfections, you were able to vote in an administration that was
actually
going to rip out that whatever you call it, right?
The system is better.
It showed the system is better.
Even though the system was trying to get rigged, enough people revolted against
it.
Yes.
But look at the ideas that you're attaching to this administration.
Like, look, the ICE stuff is horrific.
The people getting shot, it's horrific.
We all agree to that.
There's a lot of the authoritarian aspects, it's horrific.
But what they've stopped is all of this illegal immigration, right?
They've stopped all the illegal immigration.
Legal immigration is still available.
And then what they've also done is investigate literally billions of dollars in
fraud and
they're uncovering it over and over and over and over again.
So there was obviously crime that was going on that was not being addressed by
the previous
party.
Sure.
And this is one of the reasons why they didn't want the Republicans getting in
in the first
place.
So they still have to label them in the most horrific ways possible, accentuate
all the
negative aspects of what's going on with the ICE stuff, but not talk at all
about the economy
taking an uptick, not talk at all about GDP, not talk at all about tariffs
being effective,
not talk at all about any of the positive things.
Stopping wars.
He stopped wars in multiple different countries, stop conflicts.
There's no one's talking at all in an objective sense.
It's this is a Nazi party.
These are fascists.
We have to have no kings.
Stop the fascists.
So these narratives are just being pushed out there constantly by the media,
all the while
these politicians are absolutely terrified that these investigations are going
to start
moving into their states and uncovering more and more and more fraud, which
they're going
to.
I mean, I know you say it's so reckless, though, I think as well for the
Democrats to, like
you say, paint ice as Nazis, talk about that this is the equivalent of the Gestapo.
I think someone used that phrase.
I mean, what you're saying about the shootings, obviously, we all agree it's
absolutely horrific.
Any kind of situation where police inflict that kind of violence and someone
needs to be thoroughly
investigated and looked into and all the rest of it.
But I'm concerned about the politicians I know.
Go there.
Get in the way of federal agents while they're enforcing the law.
They're just trying to be popular.
But they're putting people's lives at risk.
I mean, but it's again that that chess move again, giving up the rook or
attacking a rook
and giving up your queen because of it, because you just want the current.
Well, it's it's working insofar as the like the public is turning against Trump
because
of what's happening with ICE.
I mean, there's certainly a lot of that.
Yeah, there's certainly a lot of that.
The narrative is out there.
But it's dependent upon how far it goes.
Yeah.
Right.
They've got to deescalate this violence.
Yes.
They've got to make sure that that.
But you also need support of local police.
You can't have people attack the hotels where these ICE people are staying and
have no support
whatsoever by the police.
That's crazy.
They're being told to stand down.
So this is messy stuff.
And you.
Yeah.
But look how hard it was.
I mean, you talk about how, you know, Trump has come in and he stripped away
all this stuff
and this fraud.
And but that was he didn't do it in the first term.
It's only when he got to the second term and it was planned.
And he had Doge set up and he had Musk in place and all of this deep state
stuff could
be identified and stripped out and worked on.
We have a lot of deep state people in his cabinet the first term.
Right.
We didn't know.
So he couldn't work against it.
Right.
But we can't in the UK.
Just to sort of explain where I think we are there is we can't do that because
we have
the two major parties are both ideologically in lockstep effectively.
Right.
So.
So, I mean, most of the woke stuff was pushed through the conservative party.
They were in power for 13 years.
They're ostensibly right wing.
They pushed through the woke stuff?
They pushed through all the genders, self-recognition stuff.
Why do you think the conservatives did that?
So the why is a good question.
So the prime minister, Theresa May, conservative prime minister at the time,
she said in her
autobiography, I'm woke and proud.
You know, she said like she.
Can you imagine Trump saying that?
It's the equivalent.
It's the equivalent.
So I think it's because something about this ideology infected every side of
the political
art, particularly in the UK.
What might happen now in the UK is reform are probably going to win the next
election.
That's in three years time.
And that's so seismic because it will blow apart this two party system that we've
got.
That probably couldn't happen in America, right?
You probably couldn't get a third party that can win.
We have a third party that can win.
That's new.
Really?
And that's we haven't had that for a long, long, long, long time.
But what is the possibility that it could win?
You think it's 50-50?
Look at it this way.
We've been sort of veering massively from, you know, the conservatives under
Boris Johnson
won this mad, mad majority, like 80 seat majority.
And they could do whatever they want and they squandered it.
People were so resentful of what happened with Johnson, who, by the way, let in
so more
immigration than illegal migration than we've ever had, right?
Did he do that for cheap labor?
Probably.
I mean, I think that's certainly part of it.
Certainly that's part of it.
That's a problem that conservatives don't want to admit that they were, you
know, I had
a conversation with a very prominent politician who explained to me that he had
a conversation
with a guy who was a CEO of a corporation that didn't want to stop the flow of
illegal immigration
because he wanted cheap labor.
And he was flabbergasted.
He was like, I can't fucking believe this guy's saying this out loud.
It's worse with Johnson because in their manifesto, they pledged not to do it.
So they had a promise.
They call it the Boris wave.
So that's how bad it was.
And then you have Starmer and the Labour Party who were just as bad, if not
worse.
And, you know, we have a situation where it's unmanageable now and reform this
third party,
Nigel Farage's party, is saying, no, we're actually going to tackle this.
And of course, ultimately, what happens is the public, they reach a tipping
point and they
say, by the way, Starmer is the least popular prime minister on any opinion
poll ever in the
history of records.
He's gone from a massive majority to nothing because he's been so useless on
all of this stuff
because he's been so captured by the ideology, because he doesn't care about
migration, because
he said that anyone who was concerned about the grooming gang scandal was
jumping on a bandwagon
of the far right.
That's what he said.
Yeah.
So all of this has happened.
But you can't blame the left.
It's the left and the right.
It's both of them.
It's why they call it the uni party.
It's the same thing.
So you need something else to come along and explode it.
What do you think the possibility of Farage winning?
Pretty high.
Right.
So if it were today, he'd win.
If he didn't get whacked between now and then.
Do you guys whack people over there very often?
Less than here.
I think that's more.
It's more an American thing.
It's a lot easier.
A lot more guns over here.
There's a lot more guns.
But fingers crossed, obviously, that won't happen.
But it looks like if it was today, he'd win.
There's obviously a couple of years.
I mean, he could mess things up.
Something crazy could happen.
Get caught with a live boy or a dead girl.
Something like that.
But I think with Starmer, people are just sick of it.
He has continually backtracked on all his promises.
He's not interested.
He dismisses people's concerns about immigration.
He dismisses people concerned about the mass rape of children in the grooming
gang scandal.
They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do an inquiry about that.
They didn't want to do it.
And because they're so terrified of being called racist, ultimately, so they
let this thing slide.
So I think people are just sick of it.
I think people have reached the point where even I think people who don't like
Nigel Farage
will hold their nose and vote for a third party to explode the system.
And maybe we might be able to reset after that.
Maybe something could happen.
One of the things that's interesting in America is a lot of young people are
becoming conservative.
That is interesting, yeah.
It's interesting because I think that's a force of the internet.
And being a conservative more today is more like being a rebel.
It's like bucking this system.
Whereas it used to be that if you were a rebel, you were left wing.
You were like, you're a hippie.
Yeah.
You know, and that's not really the case anymore because the system that has
power is a system
that is pushing this one very particular ideology that also demonizes young
males.
Hugely.
Yeah.
But that's also why I don't think it's about left and right anymore.
I think one of the things about the culture war is it kind of killed off left
and right.
Like I say, in the UK, we couldn't vote this out.
We had a right wing party.
It didn't make a difference.
The left wing party makes it worse.
We had a prime minister, you know, Keir Starmer on radio saying that 99.9% of
men,
women don't have a penis, which means that there are, what is it, 35,000 female
penises out there.
It's quite a lot.
If you can picture that image, you know, so that's our prime minister saying
this crazy.
Our deputy prime minister said on TV that you could grow a cervix if you wanted.
So that's David Lammy.
That sounds like I'm making that up.
He said that.
You can check that.
He said you could grow a cervix.
So these are the kind of people who are in charge now who it's just all about
their fake, you know, fake ideology.
That's all it is.
Which is why internet censorship is so much more prominent there.
That's why it's going to happen.
No, that's why they're going to absolutely try to do that.
Yeah.
Exactly.
Well, they are doing it.
Just self-censorship by arresting people.
There's a lot of censorship involved in scare.
Yeah.
Just in the fear of being arrested.
But the problem for reform will be do they have the guts to do what Trump did?
Do they have the guts to come in and say, look, we need to scrap the civil
service.
Well, you can't scrap the civil service, but you need to sort of bleed it dry.
You need to give it a good rinse, right?
You need to get rid of the...
Because there have been whistleblowers in the UK civil service who have said,
we're not going to do what the elected politicians say.
If they come in and say there's an immigration problem, we're just going to stymie
that.
We're not going to do what they want.
We've got police who are routinely investigating people for their opinions.
Just to put that into context, by the way, if we're talking about this deep
state that we've got to clean out,
our police force is trained by a body called the College of Policing.
They have been telling police for years, it's your job to arrest people for
what they think and what they say.
And the high court told them, you've got to stop this.
You've got to stop recording non-crime hate incidents.
Two home secretaries said to them, you've got to stop recording non-crime hate
incidents.
They ignored the courts.
They ignored the government.
And that's the power of an ideologically captured quango.
That's crazy.
That's the problem.
So even when you vote for a party that's going to strip this stuff out, you
still have to do the actual hard work of stripping out.
I would abolish the College of Policing.
Do people know about non-crime hate incidents?
Do they know that this is a thing in America?
Do they know that that's what we do in the UK?
I mean, people are just aware that there's a lot of arrests because of social
media posts.
We don't pay nearly as much attention to the UK as the UK pays attention to
American politics.
And that's fair enough because we're a small island.
That's fair enough.
But what I would say is it's worse than people think insofar as the 12,000
arrested a year, that's horrific.
But with the police routinely checking up on you if you commit non-crime, that's
sort of even worse, isn't it?
The Scottish police have a database of jokes that they've seen online that they
think are problematic and they've kept this.
The Scottish police introduced a hate crime bill two years ago now, which can
prosecute you for things you say in your own house.
There's a section in that bill on the public performance of a play.
So if a play is offensive, they can arrest you.
If you're the director or an actor involved in the play and it's considered
offensive, they can arrest you.
When they implemented that hate crime bill, they set up hate crime reporting
centres.
So if you felt offended, you could, and they converted like, there was a sex
shop, I think.
There was a mushroom farm.
You could go and report hate to the police as and when it occurs.
And this is coming from the police force, the people who are supposed to
sustain authority and prevent criminality.
And you've seen the viral videos of people, police coming, knocking on people's
doors saying, you said this thing online.
That's insane.
So I think it's worse than just the arrest.
I think it's a rotten system that is being trained by activists in the College
of Policing that no government will deal with.
They don't get rid of these activists.
They let the activists.
And the activists, when they're told to stop it, they carry on anyway.
And the entire culture has to shift.
That's what I mean.
That's what I mean.
You need a politician to go in and say, scrap the College of Policing, strip
out all the activists within the NHS, within the army, within the police,
within the Crown Prosecution Service.
It also has to get so bad that people realize how bad it is and they need
radical change.
But I think the grooming gangs did that.
Yeah.
I think the fact that we effectively sacrificed thousands of kids on the altar
of ideology, the fact that we said, you know, there were politicians, councillors,
doctors, social workers saying, we don't want to be called racist.
So we're going to ignore the sexual assault of children on a mass scale.
And that was not really thoroughly covered here in America.
Really?
In mainstream news.
I think because Elon.
No, online it was, but not in mainstream news.
So do people not generally know about that?
They know about it now.
Right.
Okay.
But it wasn't something that you would see every night on CNN.
Really?
That's a huge story.
But the power of being called racist became so intense.
I mean, even, you know, that horrible bombing at the Manchester Arena at the
Ariana Grande concert.
In the subsequent report of what went wrong, one of the security guards said he
saw the perpetrator with the rucksack and he didn't approach him or apprehend
him because he was afraid of being called racist.
That was the reason.
And as a result of that, two dozen children lost their lives.
The power of smearing someone as racist is so potent, which is why I think here
in America, the word fascist, the word Nazi gets thrown around so much because
they know if someone is so branded, you disoblige yourself from having to
engage with their ideas.
They become this kind of monster that you don't have to even think about or
worry about.
And we're just I think we're just getting over that in the UK now where the
accusation of racism no longer really sticks.
I think people think it doesn't mean anything anymore.
And, you know, they've tried with reform.
They've tried saying that reform is a racist party.
It's a far right party.
No one's buying it anymore.
And I think that's why hopefully something can change.
I think the grooming gangs, I think the mass immigration to the extent where
people now are at risk.
They just are.
Unvetted people, many with criminal records.
We don't want to go the way of Sweden.
I mean, you know how bad Sweden's got.
You know, Sweden used to be the most high trust society in Europe, low crime.
They allowed mass immigration on a scale they couldn't possibly contain.
I think it's now 20 percent of Swedish population are now foreign born.
And predominantly they live in ghettos where crime is rife.
They didn't integrate.
There was no expectation they should integrate.
And as a result of that, it's gone from being one of the safest countries in
Europe to being the country that has most gun and bomb attacks.
Of any country not at war except for Mexico.
And that's happened in the space of 10 years.
Crazy.
It's an absolute trap.
I remember when it was going on and a Swedish stand-up friend of mine, Tobias
Pearson, texted me saying there's gun, there's grenades going off in Stockholm.
There's gunfire on my street.
And the politicians are doing nothing about it.
They're saying this doesn't matter.
I was in Sweden a couple of years ago.
I was talking to a bunch of – you know what Swedes are like.
They're very middle class, very – well, not all of them, but very liberal.
Not a racist shred in their body.
And they all came back to the same story.
They all wanted to discuss immigration.
And they all come back to the same thing.
One woman said to me, I got this wrong.
We got this wrong.
Why do you think they did it?
Good intentions first and foremost.
Really?
Okay.
Well, there's a –
Really?
You think it's just good intentions to let all those people in?
Have you met Swedes?
I have, but I mean, come on.
It's happening in America.
It's happening in England.
It's happening in the UK.
Yes.
It's happening in Ireland.
It's happening – it's just good intentions everywhere.
Could it also be – could it also be this delusion, this idea, what you would
call, I suppose, liberal universalism, this idea that everyone is basically the
same.
Everyone in every culture basically wants the same things.
It explains the queers for Palestine phenomenon.
You know, it doesn't matter where you go.
No, no, no, no.
The queers for Palestine phenomenon is explained by the internet.
There are people being stupid and being in a bubble where they never experience
those folks.
I don't think – I think this is organized.
I think it's organized.
I think the more chaos there is, the more they can crack down on your rights.
I know you think it's organized.
I'm not convinced of that yet.
I'm open to it.
Okay?
I mean, at one point in time, it's fairly universal in Western societies now to
try to ruin them.
Yes.
In America as well.
Yeah.
For the last four years before Trump got into office, that's what they were
doing here.
It seems like a strategy.
It doesn't seem as simple as just good intentions.
I know.
Well, and that does seem too simplistic.
I absolutely agree with that.
You create more chaos.
The more chaos you have, the more laws you need.
The more laws you need, the more control you have.
But speaking to these people in Sweden, I mean, I was there – it was an event
where we were talking about a book I'd written.
So it was all about these issues.
And I was mingling and talking to them.
And they all wanted to talk about it.
But they're the citizens.
That's what I mean, though.
They're not the people that implemented those laws in the first place.
That's where I'm cynical.
I think the people that implement those laws in the first place, they know what
they're doing.
Yes.
And, well, certainly they're aware of the risks.
I mean, if you take what happened in Cologne, that New Year's Eve party, where
I think over 800 women were sexually assaulted.
And the media didn't report it.
And the government wanted to sort of minimalize it and say that this wasn't
real.
It's not even just the risks.
It's the physical, actual, measurable consequences.
Yes, exactly.
And they're not course correcting.
That, to me, leads me to think that they know what they're doing.
You don't think it could just be complete naivety, this idea that –
I think it's the best way to combat the internet.
The best way to combat the internet is create a massive amount of chaos and
then crack down on people's lives.
I suppose what worries me about it is, though, the assumption that it's all
sort of coordinated.
Will take you down that route where you start thinking, as some friends of mine
now think, the world is controlled by a group of Satanists who sit in a room
and they choose the leaders and they – do you know what I mean?
Well, I don't think it's Satanists, but I think it's incredibly wealthy people.
But why would it be in their interest to destroy the economy that so sustains
them?
Well, it depends on where they are and who they are.
But George Soros clearly does that and he's talked about it.
He's talked about enjoying destroying democracies and enjoying destroying
countries.
He's kicked – he's not allowed to go into certain countries.
He makes money doing it.
But he relies on those democratic societies to make –
Yeah, but they're still functional.
He just profits off of it largely.
That's what I struggle with, though.
Like, you know, someone who believes in fundamentally the capitalist dream can't
yearn for –
You can – it's subject to manipulation.
Yeah.
And intelligent, evil people or at least amoral people.
But this doesn't answer why people do vote for it and they do.
I mean –
They do vote for it because they've done a really good job of attaching it and
there's also this ideology thing.
There's left and right.
Yeah.
And if you're left, you're blue no matter who, blue to the grave.
That's it.
Yeah.
And if anybody that votes red is a dirty, racist, fascist and they think about
it that way and we really have no option for a centrist party in this country,
which is where most people lie.
Most people lie in the middle.
Most people are very socially liberal and most of the people that I know that
even identify as conservative, they're very socially liberal.
But they're financially much more aligned with conservative ideology.
Sure.
Well, I think – I mean I think ultimately, hopefully, the brick wall of
reality is what cures this.
Like it's when –
If we don't destroy society along the way, if we don't allow them to destroy
society, if we don't completely erode all of our rights along the way.
And as you said earlier, you can get very close to that happening.
And rights lost are never regained.
Never.
Look at Australia.
They had one mass shooting.
They took their guns in the 1990s.
Then COVID came.
They're like, get in a fucking camp.
Yeah.
And they've just introduced a new hate speech law off the back of the Bondi
Beach shooting.
And of course, this, again, is really draconian.
It goes way too far.
In fact, I think the Australian hate speech law is basically saying if someone
does something that wasn't intended to stir up hatred but it could conceivably
have stirred up hatred among a theoretical group of people, then it's a crime
and you can get five years in prison.
Sure.
And imagine blaming that on hate speech instead of blaming it on just letting
wild, violent criminals emigrate into your country.
Right.
I mean, that's something.
Yeah.
What an amazing gaslighting.
Like not saying, hey, maybe we should stop letting violent criminals enter into
our country illegally and live here.
No, no, no.
What we should start doing is taking people that have done no crime whatsoever
and create their dissent, create a crime based on their dissent.
I totally agree.
We had it in the UK.
We had a politician, horrible story, a guy called David Amos.
You know, he was stabbed to death by an Islamist at his surgery.
You know, politicians, we call them surgeries where you meet face to face your
constituents.
They come and you talk about the local issues.
I don't think they do that in America.
He stabbed him to death.
And then there was this parliamentary debate about how can we crack down on
free speech online?
Right.
No, the problem was the knife wielding maniac.
The problem was unchecked Islamism.
I mean, it really is what Besbinov was saying.
Yeah.
It's that thing of not addressing the like after the not seeing the truth, not
seeing the truth because you've been captured.
But you've been demoralized.
But I think what's better now is that people can see through that.
So like when when Keir Starmer, after that horrible, I mentioned earlier, the
girls who were killed in the dance class by the guy who was a child of
immigrants.
He that his response to that was, OK, let's let's not, you know, deal with the
fact that we've got radicalized individuals within our community, young people.
He said, let's ban buying knives off Amazon because the guy got the knife from
Amazon.
Right.
You can also get them in shops here.
You can walk in and get a shop.
Most people have a kitchen knife at home.
It's like one of the most common weapons.
And he banned ninja swords around the same time, which was a big blow to the
ninja community.
But I kind of so crazy.
Like, that's the thing you go for.
You choose the thing that isn't.
But this is the idea of allowing this kind of chaos and having this be a
coordinated plan.
Right.
Yeah.
The more chaos you have, the more you gaslight people, the more people are
attached to an ideology, the more you can keep restricting their rights further
and further and further until they're more and more frustrated and to a lot of
them just give up.
But we are at a position now where people are seeing through it all the time in
the UK now, like no matter how much they smear reform is far right.
The polls just keep going up and up and up.
Right.
But it's because of the Internet, because you have at least some dissenting
voices.
We have that.
And also the palpable absurdities of what the politicians are trying to tell
you is real.
Right.
Is as big as reach.
That's why they're trying to crack down on pub talk.
Oh, and by the way, you know, the Labour Party has canceled a number of local
elections because they know they're going to lose them.
They've actually canceled it.
They've canceled them.
Well, they've said they've postponed them while they're reforming the system.
Right.
What they really.
Oh, God.
But it's stuff like that where.
Get rid of the juries, cancel elections.
And they're the good guys.
And at that point, it doesn't matter how much your propaganda or how much you
think your propaganda is going to work.
The public are going to see through that.
And they say, hang on a minute.
You're saying that I can't vote.
You're saying if I end up in court, I may not have a jury.
You're saying I can't browse through Twitter.
You're saying I can't say the wrong thing online.
Enough is enough.
And I think they reach a point where they say.
And some of the stories are so egregious, like, for instance, the guy.
Have you heard of a guy called Hamit Koskan?
This I think he's Armenian guy who burned a copy of his Koran outside the
Turkish embassy.
Right.
The idea of this was a protest against the Turkish government because he perceives
Erdogan's government as, I suppose, supporting Islamism and the rise of Islamism.
So he protests outside the thing, burns the Koran.
Two people attack him, one with a knife.
The other, some Deliveroo driver, starts kicking him.
He gets prosecuted in a court of law for inciting the violence.
And the judge actually says, the fact that you were attacked is proof that you
were inciting violence.
Right.
It took the free speech union in the UK to have that overturned, to fight on
his behalf, to say that's a peaceful protest.
It was his copy of his book.
We don't have blasphemy laws in the UK.
But now the CPS, the Crown Prosecution Service, is trying to overturn that
because they want to see this guy go down.
And that is what we're talking about.
We've got bodies like the Crown Prosecution Service saying, no, we want an
Islamic blasphemy code in the UK.
The Labour Party wants an official definition of Islamophobia.
So you can't criticise, you can't peacefully protest, you can't burn a book
that you bought, you know, and all of that.
And we're seeing this happen in front of us.
And people are just saying, look, we believe in plurality.
We believe in freedom of religion.
You should be able to, you know, we've got nothing against Muslim people.
What we are objecting to is the idea that we shouldn't be able to ridicule your
religion or mock your religion or protest against your religion.
And you're going to pathologise it by saying we've got a sickness, we're Islamophobic.
I think people, I think that case, the fact that you can't burn, I mean, some
kid in a school in Wakefield accidentally scuffed a copy of his Koran and he
got hit with a non-crime hate incident.
And there was a big issue and the police got involved.
You know, we have to hold fast to this idea that, no, no idea, no idea doesn't
get criticised.
And so I just think the more stories like that happen, maybe I'm naive, but I
think the British public's patience is kind of at the very end.
I hope so.
I hope it's not too late.
I really do.
But in the meantime, your book, The End of Woke, it's available.
Did you do the audio version of it?
I did.
It took me ages.
Yeah.
I'm glad you did it, though.
Yeah, I'm sure it is, but it's always so much better when it's in someone's
voice, especially someone like you.
Thank you, Andrew.
Really appreciate it.
And I hope you guys figure it out over there.
But in the meantime, I'm glad you're here.
Well, I got away.
I'm glad.
I'm glad, but I mean, it shouldn't be that everybody has to escape.
That's crazy.
No, I know.
You know, it's nuts.
And then what's going to be left?
Like, only people that are submitting and then the chaos of what you've allowed
in?
Right.
Fucking nuts.
Exactly.
So you've got to make sure that America doesn't go to pop, because I need this
place to work.
Yeah, I need it to work, too.
Well, it's part of my business model.
All right.
Thank you.
Bye, everybody.
Bye, everybody.